[BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 251
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

[BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

What is the point of this tank compared to the Achilles? Is there any real reason to get this when you have a british player on your team? Before I get into this lets do a comparison:

Image
M36 Tank Destroyer
650 MP, 90 Fuel, 5 CP's
PROS:
-Fast Turret Rotation
-Gun Does More Damage (17P 90-130 vs 90mm 130-160)
-Slightly More Health (600 vs Achilles 500 HP)

Image
M10 I/C Achilles Tank
430 MP, 65 Fuel, 2 CP's
PROS:
-No Engine upgrade required to go at full speed
-Flank speed from the start
-HE rounds
-17P Has higher base accuracy at range than the 90mm (0.85 vs 0.75 for 90mm)
-Reloads Faster (4.2 vs 7 seconds for 90mm)
-Arrives faster in the game
-It's pretty cheap and does not have massive fuel upkeep (Jackson has almost double the fuel upkeep compared to an Achilles without Supply Yard Fuel Upkeep Upgrade)

What really makes me wonder why the Jackson costs so much and comes far later in the game is what's the point of doing more damage if you take twice as long to reload than the Achilles does? This TD falls apart in so many situations, to give examples:

-Your M36 Ambushes a panther and gets a low damage roll on its hit, it get's oneshotted by the panther when it reveals itself.
-Your M36 misses a Hetzer, and gets oneshotted back.
-Your M36 bounces an axis heavy from ambush and you get oneshotted.

I mean, the same thing can happen to the Achilles but it's not like I'm losing too much because of how cheap and effective the british TD is. Why do I even have to buy an engine to get flank speed on this tank? It's supposed to be the penultimate allied tank destroyer yet it's so bad compared to the british arsenal that I often tell my team mates to not bother going down the TD line for armor doctrine; Because the british will take care of armor threats with their Achilles. There is 0 point to getting this tank at all in team games and consider also that it comes later than propaganda tigers (which are at 4 CP's).

I'm not asking to do anything about it right now but please keep in mind how... mediocre... this tank is compared to should-be-similar-performing TD's.

MEFISTO
Posts: 133
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MEFISTO »

MenciusMoldbug wrote:
10 Jul 2020, 04:04
What is the point of this tank compared to the Achilles? Is there any real reason to get this when you have a british player on your team? Before I get into this lets do a comparison:

Image
M36 Tank Destroyer
650 MP, 90 Fuel, 5 CP's
PROS:
-Fast Turret Rotation
-Gun Does More Damage (17P 90-130 vs 90mm 130-160)
-Slightly More Health (600 vs Achilles 500 HP)

Image
M10 I/C Achilles Tank
430 MP, 65 Fuel, 2 CP's
PROS:
-No Engine upgrade required to go at full speed
-Flank speed from the start
-HE rounds
-17P Has higher base accuracy at range than the 90mm (0.85 vs 0.75 for 90mm)
-Reloads Faster (4.2 vs 7 seconds for 90mm)
-Arrives faster in the game
-It's pretty cheap and does not have massive fuel upkeep (Jackson has almost double the fuel upkeep compared to an Achilles without Supply Yard Fuel Upkeep Upgrade)

What really makes me wonder why the Jackson costs so much and comes far later in the game is what's the point of doing more damage if you take twice as long to reload than the Achilles does? This TD falls apart in so many situations, to give examples:

-Your M36 Ambushes a panther and gets a low damage roll on its hit, it get's oneshotted by the panther when it reveals itself.
-Your M36 misses a Hetzer, and gets oneshotted back.
-Your M36 bounces an axis heavy from ambush and you get oneshotted.

I mean, the same thing can happen to the Achilles but it's not like I'm losing too much because of how cheap and effective the british TD is. Why do I even have to buy an engine to get flank speed on this tank? It's supposed to be the penultimate allied tank destroyer yet it's so bad compared to the british arsenal that I often tell my team mates to not bother going down the TD line for armor doctrine; Because the british will take care of armor threats with their Achilles. There is 0 point to getting this tank at all in team games and consider also that it comes later than propaganda tigers (which are at 4 CP's).

I'm not asking to do anything about it right now but please keep in mind how... mediocre... this tank is compared to should-be-similar-performing TD's.
+1 Agree

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 360
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by CGarr »

Honestly, I wouldn't touch either unit in terms of performance, but the cost makes like 0 sense to me. The only time's I've ever bothered building it are when I think I'll need a 90mm myself ASAP and won't have the fuel for the pershing soon. In any other situation, I'd rather spend the fuel on the 75mm jumbo and just sit behind AT guns until I can get a pershing. If it had a huge range advantage over its peers (like the nashorn does over other axis TD's) then it'd make sense, but the difference is negligible. The cost difference, on the other hand, is massive between the M36 and it's peers. There is objectively no reason to ever build this thing, the scenario I described above only occurs because I am impatient and personally dislike campy gameplay.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Comparison-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as its performance goes, anyone who thinks this thing would be OP at a lower price should compare it to it's peers. Mencius already demonstrated above in his own comparison how the achilles is better, so I won't repeat those points. Let's instead compare it to some other TD's and heavies:

M36: Failed attempt to make an endgame glass-cannon unit.
+ Generally one hits most targets from ambush when it pens
+ fast turret
- Extremely high cost for a relatively shitty gun and no armor, paying around the same price on Axis gives you a Nashorn or JPZ4/70. The Nashorn's gun is much better than the 90mm in practice since it has extremely long range and allies don't have anything that can reliably bounce shots from it. The JPZ4/70 actually has armor, and the gun is still good enough to pen everything but a crocodile Ace.
- Bad penetration relative to the targets it is intended destroy. It comes at 5 CP, putting it on par with the heavier axis TD's, so I assume it is meant to fight late game heavy armor like KT's and the Jagdtiger, yet it likely would struggle to pen either of those tanks from the front since I've seen the M36 bounce shots on panthers in the few instances where I've seen people bother to build one. You're better off building an M10 or two if you want to fight super-heavies, which is dumb since that thing costs like 35 fuel. The decision to make the M36 garbage and give the M10 HEAT boggles my mind.
- Long ass reload time
- Might as well be unarmored.
- Has to pay for the flank speed ability and that ability is worth fuck all when the tank that has it can die to AT rifles and 37mm's.
- Inaccurate. This makes 0 sense for a glass cannon TD, it should at least be good at the one thing it's specialized for but it's just not.
- No anti-inf capabilities whatsoever unless you're ballsy enough to try and run over AT inf with a 90 fuel cardboard box.

StugIV(and late version): Obnoxiously strong all-rounder, not OP, just annoying.
+ 2CP
+ Has enough armor to regularly bounce shots from 0CP allied armor.
+ Reliably pens everything allies have at the time it hits the field except churchills, and churchills would prob have trouble penning it regularly considering they often struggle with 0CP panzer 4 F2's.
+ Meaty HE when paired with ambush.
+ Roof MG
+ Cheap
+ accurate gun
+ Reasonably fast reload
+ Doesn't die to 37mm guns from the front
- no turret

JPZ4/48 or Hetzer: Pretty much just a stug with heat instead of HE and a higher price.
+ 2-3 CP
+ Stug with a better gun and similar or better armor
+ coax MG or infinite belt robo roof mount MG
+ HEAT
+ accurate gun
+ Incoming accuracy modifier even when stationary "bEcAuSe iT's LoW pRoFiLe".
+ Doesn't die to 37mm guns from the front
- no HE
- no turret
= 60 fuel, not cheap but not overpriced

JPZ4/70: A proper mid-late game TD.
+ 4CP
+ will pen everything allies have.
+ Can oneshot many allied tanks reasonably often.
+ Doesn't die to 37mm guns from the front
- Can be expensive, depending on doctrine.
= Same armor as the other JPZ, not bad but not great. You aren't incentivized to use it aggressively like an allied TD though.

Nashorn: Good example of a well balanced glass cannon.
+ 4-5CP, don't remember but its not hard to rush.
+ FAT damage, will one hit kill most things and if it doesn't instantly kill whatever it is shooting at, that thing is probably not going to be able to shoot back
+ Not sure why this thing has AP, it pens everything
+ Rarely misses
+ 4 CP
+ Extremely long range by default (doesn't necessarily need vet or ambush like heavies or other TD's would to outrange stuff).
- No turret
- Slow as hell
- no armor, similar reasoning to JPZ4/70 but taken to an extreme. can die to a 37mm from the front, although its not like SE doc has trouble dealing with AT guns.
- no anti inf

Jagdpanther: Basically a panther on steroids that someone spraypainted camouflage and glued a few twigs to.
+ Nashorn level gun performance.
+ Has a good amount of armor even for how late it comes out.
+ Can still ambush despite having such good armor
+ Doesn't die to 37mm guns from the front
- 6 CP, if not more
- expensive
- no turret

ACE tiger: Not a TD, but does the same job infinitely better than any other unit in the game aside from the other ACE tank (ACE panther).
+ Good base range
+ Good accuracy
+ Good damage
+ shit ton of health
+ good armor all around
+ Doesn't die to 37mm guns from the front
+ HE
+ MG's
+ S-Mine Launcher in case the anti inf capabilities weren't good enough
+ Reasonably fast
+ turret
+ ALRS functionally makes this and the ACE panther the best tanks in the game for killing other tanks, you can safely outrange everything while maintaining mobility.
+ Tigerphobia
+ no fuel cost
+ comes with free tank commander
+ 5 CP
- really expensive

------------------------------------------------------------------------Summary-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not suggesting any specific change for the M36. Just saying its hot garbage compared to all the other TD's in the game unless you compare it to the M10, which is equally bad but at least cheap. Maybe it's time to rework this thing into a different niche, or just buff it in some way? I don't see why the M10 should be better at dealing with heavies while the M36 is at it's current price, and I don't see why it should stay its current price in resources or CP if the performance isn't going to be changed.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3918
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Warhawks97 »

Nice, so i am not the only one who unlocks the M36 the last. I also never got for it when brits are with me. Spamming shermans with ammo upgrade and war machinery is a lot better counter to to most axis tanks than this thing. It costs almost as much MP as a Panther D.


It used to have HE in the past but got removed.


@CGarr: The Jagdpanzer IV/70 has much better armor than normal Jagdpanzer IV/48. The front armor is basically as good as those of Tigers. So you can bounce most allied guns, including 76 mm guns quite decently.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 591
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by mofetagalactica »

Its only good if you reeeeeeeeally realllyyyy realllyyyy really reallyyyy are in a huge urge to deal with panthers/tigers and you can't afford pershings. Anything beside that is a trash tank and pershings can somethimes too, be a fucking trash. 90mm in general are pretty meh.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4041
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

it's the Achilles which is quite questionable, not the jackson in my opinion.

Jacksons are useful in 3 different ways;
- Countering mid game Pz4/Stug spam.
- Still cheaper and earlier available than Pershings or Tigers/Panthers, so using them instead of Pershings vs Tigers/Panthers is often more cost effective/sufficient specifically when supported by HE Shermans.
- When the SP is dead, sometimes Jacksons are the only answer.. often they fail, but often enough they also succeed in late game.

So, i think jacksons aren't over-priced.. but Achilles are under-priced, or has more abilities.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3918
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Warhawks97 »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
11 Jul 2020, 12:05
it's the Achilles which is quite questionable, not the jackson in my opinion.

Not at all. CW already pays decent ammount of MP for everything (sappers, inf etc) and every loss is a hurtfull loss.
Increase M10 cost and you will find CW playing always passive and defensive bc their MP drain just for having basic defenses is so big that there wont by any ressources left for dangerous pushes that can invlove many losses.


The achilles is in my opinion for CW what stugs and JP IV´s are for axis: A cover against the majority of enemie tanks being thrown at you. Its more powerfull, yes, but most axis tanks require such a power unlike most allied paper tanks.


I wouldnt want to trust only into 57/6 pdrs when i see the axis tank stage has started. I´ve overrun the majority of those during the past days with simple tank III´s and IV´s. So i wouldnt trust them when my life depends on it. But if you increase Achilles cost, you will do exactly that.





Jacksons are useful in 3 different ways;
- Countering mid game Pz4/Stug spam.
which is supposed to be done by M10 and M18
Paying 5 CP to counter stuff that coms at 0-2 CP.
Anyone else here who can now clearly see what garbage the 76 guns are?

- Still cheaper and earlier available than Pershings or Tigers/Panthers, so using them instead of Pershings vs Tigers/Panthers is often more cost effective/sufficient specifically when supported by HE Shermans.
Luft has panther for 5 CP and BK at 6. And i would argue that armor doc has to unlock other stuff first anyways if it wants to survive mid game or if you want to achieve any kind of mid game push like off map arty, cheaper shermans and stuff like that You can go for jacks only when you have someone else who is attacking while you provide the back up cover. But in this regard CW can do better which brings us back to the point: Why even getting the Jackson unless your team job is to dedicate yourself to providing just defensive back ups? Going for jacks right away makes you playing passive. Axis pays 600 MP and gets something to actually attack with. US needs to spend 600 MP just to stand its ground.


So at the end, as suggest working effectively with HE shermans together, means to spend way more than just 5 CP. Probably going at least for cheaper sherman production and perhaps even off map arty strike.
Otherwhise i dont see how you want to push anything when you get to spend 1060 MP and 130 fuel just for two units that have sherman armor. A single 50 mm AT can ruin your entire day.

So, putting things together, i would say you spend 5 CP for Jacks and 4 CP for cheaper sherman and off map arty strike to make your propsal work. Axis meanwhile spends 6 CP, 700 MP, 130 fuel and gets a unit that can ignore pretty much all medium and even heavy US AT and thus offer you an easy solution for the attack.




- When the SP is dead, sometimes Jacksons are the only answer.. often they fail, but often enough they also succeed in late game.

So, i think jacksons aren't over-priced.. but Achilles are under-priced, or has more abilities.
[/quote]

MEFISTO
Posts: 133
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MEFISTO »

this doctrine is no worthy: 9cp for a perhing vs 4cp tigers or 6cp panthers this is if you go straigth for a pershing what means if you use cp in othher things will be 11 or more cp for a pershing, Jakson path: 1stugIV shoot to take them down, artillery path: can't hold a axis heavy tank rush 4 cp tigers 6 cp panthers 4cp L70 etc.. pershing path it's a joke 9cp no any strong tank, shermans 76 are a bad joke when you face stugsIV and panzer IV or hetzel at least before you had a Jumbo 76mm now it's a 5cp 75 jumbo omg and finally pershings (please make them better vs hetzels stugs panzerIV puma75mm.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3918
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Warhawks97 »

The Situation wouldnt be so worse if the medium Tanks would actually work. And Their TD´s are upper crap. In over 50% of the cases when i ambushed german tanks, i lost the engagment. In the replay kwok uploaded the TD´s succeeded not a single time in destroying their targets.

Stugs are a real pain bc you can spam them like shermans in two docs and in adition the 50 mm AT gun also takes its toll.


The doctrine is supposed to work mostly with shermans and TD´s as well as support abilties and indirect support. But in the current state you dont get anywhere without Jumbo and Pershings. But even there i was unlucky bc the Jumbo is also taken out easily by hidden Stugs and it cant take out axis tanks by its own which can shoot as long as they need to destroy the jumbo.

I would add the 76 mm Jumbo sherman back to armor doc and keep all jumbos in there. In inf doc i need the Jackson anyways in the late game vs Panthers and for the push i use arty.

The Pershing is also taken out quite often by Stugs as you can even see in the latest of kwoks replays.


If the Jacks wouldnt be so hilariously overpriced for what it actually does and if the 76 guns would work and if the TD´s would actually do their job just as the Stug does its job, things would be much better.

The current slaughter and the ammount of super cheap, 0 CP axis Tank slaughter machines is unbearable for any allied Tank player currently.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 360
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by CGarr »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
11 Jul 2020, 12:05
it's the Achilles which is quite questionable, not the jackson in my opinion.

Jacksons are useful in 3 different ways;
- Countering mid game Pz4/Stug spam.
- Still cheaper and earlier available than Pershings or Tigers/Panthers, so using them instead of Pershings vs Tigers/Panthers is often more cost effective/sufficient specifically when supported by HE Shermans.
- When the SP is dead, sometimes Jacksons are the only answer.. often they fail, but often enough they also succeed in late game.

So, i think jacksons aren't over-priced.. but Achilles are under-priced, or has more abilities.
Man, don't be ridiculous. CW would get steamrolled without the achilles at the price its at. They'd have to play ridiculously passively since the achilles is made of paper. The firefly isnt going to save the day, its reload is long enough that 2 pz4 F2's can easily beat it, especially if they use their smoke, and it costs the same as or more than those 2 tanks in terms of fuel. In terms of MP, CW isn't generally swimming in MP unless the axis player is camping. And the achilles is the only reliable counter CW has to heavy tanks, comets are hot garbage for how late they come out since their gun doesnt do a much damage, and neither the comet nor the firefly will outrange ALRS, an achilles will at least force an ACE tank to come close or rely on supporting units.

I'd be fine with the achilless getting nerfed if people think it's overperforming, but only on the condition that the comet's damage and health get buffed (maybe make an ace version? the normal one is functionally identical to an achilles but without camo) so that it can actually do something about proper heavy tanks. Make a separate topic if you want to push for changes to those units, though. This is for the M36 and the M36 seriously needs attention.

Saying jacksons are useful is objectively dumb or dishnoest, M10/M18's are already there to counter pz4/stugs (even though they're kinda terrible at it). Sure its cheaper than a pershing and or tiger, but it's only 20 less fuel than a BK panther (and similar in MP price) and I guarantee the panther will win most of the time if you screen with inf when pushing. And don't pretend you can push with an M36 against a panther frontally, 90% of the time its going to fail since the panther will fire first unless it was aiming in a completely different direction and even if you fire first, there's a decent chance you wont pen (despite having the same 90mm a pershing does). For a glass cannon that has 0 anti inf capability and costs almost as much as a panther, it's complete ass when you compare it to a proper glass cannon like a nashorn. And M36 isn't the only answer if you lose the SP, you can still build normal pershings and the M10 still has its stupid HEAT shell if you're really desperate.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4041
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Ya, so let's have jackson cheaper than a Firefly and Achilles in all docs??
How is this a solution though.. well; of course Axis are OP, so why not! :roll:

jackson B1 has stationary position ability boosting its reload and gun range dramatically, plus a relatively good armor that can actually bounce off Tiger's and Panther's guns often enough.. and the regular jackson in Armor doctrine is the only unit that can effectively flank jagdtiger and destroy it, which is something Wolverine and Hellcat can't do, due to weaker gun vs jagdtiger.. neither Achilles can do due to slower turret rotation... You seem to underestimate jackson too much, we gotta play some games together so i can show you what the jackson is capable of.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3918
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Warhawks97 »

Tiger. I will try to give you some informations.

The accuracy from ambush is usually always increased by 25%. So i wont mention it for each weapon again.



Stug IV:

400 MP/50 fuel

Weapons reload: 6-7 sec
Range: 60

Weapons Reload Ambush: 4.5-5.25
Ambush Range: 70

Weapons Accuracy:
75% (0.75)

Side Note: I found a Mistake here: It gets 50% penetration boost from ambush but just 25% accuracy boost. Usually its the other way arround. 50% accuracy and 25% pen boost.

The Jagdpanzer IV/70 has also 55% accuracy boost instead of 50%.


Thats just a first warm up.

Now lets get to the classes where Jacks plays in:


JP IV/70:

600 MP/85 fuel

Weapons reload: 7-8 sec
Range: 65

Weapons Reload Ambush: 5.25-6
Ambush Range: 75

Weapons accuracy:
85% (0.85)


Nashorn:


560 MP/75 fuel

Weapons reload: 6.5-7.5 sec
Range: 70

Weapons Reload Ambush: 4.875-5.625
Ambush Range: 80

Weapons accuracy:
100% (1)



Jacks A:

650 MP/90 fuel

Weapons reload: 6.5-7.5 sec
Range: 60

Weapons Reload Ambush: 4.875-5.625
Ambush Range: 65

Weapons accuracy:
75%



Given the fact that the JP IV/70 is harder to hit, much better armored, having a 57,6% base chance to pen a Pershing with a base range of 65, and that a Nashorn with huge base range (outranges pershing at default) and 75% base pen chance vs Pershing, are much more effective and deadly TD´s, yes i would say Jacks are overpriced.
The Jacks has normal tank range of 60 and 65 from ambush. It has only sherman armor that gets often enough penetrated by medium AT. Its chances to pen Panther A with skirts is 66.642% at max range. Against Panther D and G its just 59,9778%.

In order to oneshot a Panther, you have to trigger max damage, else its not going to die and probably kills you. The Panther always pens you and doesnt require max damage trigger to kill you.


So:
When we Put Jacks A against Nashorn and JP IV/70:

Axis TDs advantage over Jacks:
Higher range
Better armor or better gun with more range/pen/accuracy/damage.
lower cost
better accuracy
Generally better pen vs heavier tanks. And due to range advantages also much better when it comes to defending against heavies.


Conclusion:
Jacks A, in its current state, should cost max 550 MP and 75 fuel.




Now Jacks B:

Jacks B:

700 MP/110 fuel.

Weapons reload: 6.5-7.5 sec
Range: 60

Weapons Reload Lockdown: 4.875-5.625
Lockdown Range: 70

Weapons accuracy:
75% (0.75)


Note pls that the Tank gets 25% easier to hit when in lockdown. So schrecks and other Tanks have an easy target.


Panther D:

680MP/110 fuel

Weapons reload: 7-8 sec
Range: 65

Weapons Reload Lockdown:-
Lockdown Range: -

Weapons accuracy:
90% (0.9)



Note:
Panther A can outaccelerate and outspeed the Jacks B. The Panther D outspeeds the Jacks B by far but accelerates slightly slower.
Panther also cost less fuel upkeep. The Panther will also always penetrate the Jacks B.

In Short:
Panthers are generally cheaper (or only slightly more expensive in case of the A) but are very good allrounder. They can bounce so far everything that is fired at it, even bouncing Firefly shots wwhich have standard just 47% pen chance at max range. Its rate of fire is somewhat slower than that of Jacks (even more so when those are in ambush mode) but in turn you dont have to worry so much about getting killed outright by Jacks B since it has to trigger max damage to do so.

The mobility is in favour for the Panther and also gun range. So if you attack with jackson, you cant catch it and would need to go into stat mode to outrange it. Which in turn makes you being a sitting duck to schrecks and medium AT guns.

So, Panthers advantages over Jacks B:

Same cost (D costs even less)
lower fuel upkeep
Panther is allrounder tank with HE rounds and good armor
Panther has much much better armor
Panther will likely win a 1 vs 1 firefight since it can fight at his terms.
Panther has way better accuracy.
Panther has the tactical advantage and can kite the Jacks B and fight when things are in his favour.


From that Perspective, Jacks B max cost should be arround 600-650 and 80-90 fuel.

The Panther is basically a Jackson and Jumbo at once with better mobility but costing not more than a Jacks which is a dedicated TD.






Besides that i would highly reccomend to rework the Tank gun accuracy systems. There is no point that 76 and 95 mm guns have soo poor accuracy even at long range while Panther does barely and Nashorn does not lose accuracy at all like it is laser beam or something.


Accuracy stats for a 90 mm should look like 1/1/0.9/0.8 and 76 mm gun accuracy something like 1/1/0.85/0.8 or 0.75.
But german medium tanks also have these 1/1/0-75/0.75 thing. As if old devs were too lazy to set proper accuracy stats and proper range brackets.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 23 Jul 2020, 11:50, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Redgaarden »

Death TO JACKSON!
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

MEFISTO
Posts: 133
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MEFISTO »

Warhawks97 wrote:
23 Jul 2020, 09:12
The Situation wouldnt be so worse if the medium Tanks would actually work. And Their TD´s are upper crap. In over 50% of the cases when i ambushed german tanks, i lost the engagment. In the replay kwok uploaded the TD´s succeeded not a single time in destroying their targets.

Stugs are a real pain bc you can spam them like shermans in two docs and in adition the 50 mm AT gun also takes its toll.


The doctrine is supposed to work mostly with shermans and TD´s as well as support abilties and indirect support. But in the current state you dont get anywhere without Jumbo and Pershings. But even there i was unlucky bc the Jumbo is also taken out easily by hidden Stugs and it cant take out axis tanks by its own which can shoot as long as they need to destroy the jumbo.

I would add the 76 mm Jumbo sherman back to armor doc and keep all jumbos in there. In inf doc i need the Jackson anyways in the late game vs Panthers and for the push i use arty.

The Pershing is also taken out quite often by Stugs as you can even see in the latest of kwoks replays.


If the Jacks wouldnt be so hilariously overpriced for what it actually does and if the 76 guns would work and if the TD´s would actually do their job just as the Stug does its job, things would be much better.

The current slaughter and the ammount of super cheap, 0 CP axis Tank slaughter machines is unbearable for any allied Tank player currently.
+1
100% agree, and I would like to add, pls make the calliope Jeep a bit better as Kwok proposed in his post you basically can’t hit anything with that Jeep.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3918
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Warhawks97 »

MEFISTO wrote:
23 Jul 2020, 14:53

100% agree, and I would like to add, pls make the calliope Jeep a bit better as Kwok proposed in his post you basically can’t hit anything with that Jeep.
what i think about the jeep is that its the ammount of missiles that needs to go back up again.

The BK Maultier lays huge waste every time and are perfect for preparing an attack. It has nice scatter and enough missiles and splash damage to affect a huge area, killing weapon crews, inf, recons and snipers as well as dealing good damage to tanks like the TD´s.

Rocket arty is meant (i mean we increased the scatter of german rocket arty for that reason, no we want to reduce it for another) to lay waste over a larger area and most rocket arty is doing that totally fine.

I recently saw a calli jeep shooting from pretty close range at an inf squad capping a point. You couldnt get closer with it and the missiles hit actually quite well but only 2 men died.

So even if we reduce the scatter, i wonder what its good for. The missiles dont have the splash as nebelwerfers have so the only way to counterbalance is to give it the chance to fire 12 missiles so that you can actually "prepare" an area.

If i would want to hit a specific target, i would use the tank commander strike and spare the 300 MP for a missile jeep or use a mortar right away.

So by making it precise with just 6 missiles wouldnt add capabilities to this doc bc it would just do the same job as mortars do and those wont drain your ammo upkeep. And if i want quick reaction on a specific target, say AT gun, i would use the tank commanders arty strike. It spares me build cost of a jeep, adds experience to my tank and its commander and is probably a lot more likely to kill the gun entirley.


So, when i think about it, we wont gain anything from a precise little rocket strike that requires a unit to be build and that eats up ammo income.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4041
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

i don't think the jackson needs any price drop.. despite i would be still fine with cost you suggested for jackson above, however... i must say that some Axis tanks were made more expensive AND later available in the BETA such as jagdpanther (from 6cp to 8cp and no more cost reduction) as well as jagdtiger (now costs fuel to build, no longer call-in) in addition to Panther.D in PZ doc (which now costs 880mp - 130 fuel AND 8cp in case you don't choose the TD path) so based on this, i wouldn't make any Allied TD cheaper.. because as you can see some Axis tanks are already more expensive than they were in the regular Bk version.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 532
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Walderschmidt »

Just make the Jackson slightly cheaper and/or reduce its reload time to 3 seconds.

It can't shoot and scoot even though that's kinda what it's for.

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3918
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Warhawks97 »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
23 Jul 2020, 20:11
i don't think the jackson needs any price drop.. despite i would be still fine with cost you suggested for jackson above, however... i must say that some Axis tanks were made more expensive AND later available in the BETA such as jagdpanther (from 6cp to 8cp and no more cost reduction) as well as jagdtiger (now costs fuel to build, no longer call-in) in addition to Panther.D in PZ doc (which now costs 880mp - 130 fuel AND 8cp in case you don't choose the TD path) so based on this, i wouldn't make any Allied TD cheaper.. because as you can see some Axis tanks are already more expensive than they were in the regular Bk version.
Tank support doc is another topic. You dont go for tanks there usually. You go Tank IV F2 spam and then TD´s. No need for Tank line, esspecially when combining this doc with BK doc.


Overall cost dropped on axis side over years. Tank IV J is pretty cheap with its 410 MP... basically all mediums are cheaper than allied counterparts or roughly the same.

The cost of the last building dropped from 400 to 300 MP for wehrmacht. And Tigers are cheaper than ever and Panther D´s in BK doc cheap and very common+ are being buffed to Panther G armor values (i dont know why even).


Walderschmidt wrote:
23 Jul 2020, 21:17
Just make the Jackson slightly cheaper and/or reduce its reload time to 3 seconds.

It can't shoot and scoot even though that's kinda what it's for.

Wald



that would be faster than the achilles. 3 Secs is OP. I think reload (as long as from ambush) isnt that bad. It has the same as Nashorn. Max 0.5 secs faster but thats it. 6.5-7. Achilles is 4-5 basic reload btw.


We dont want to go into the extrem. But since this unit purpose is to be some sort of support and heavily dependend on Sherman support, it shouldnt cost as much as panther D.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 360
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by CGarr »

How about this:

Jackson B gets a price reduction to something like that of a firefly since they're basically the same tank (jackson doesn't have HE but its on US so it has better anti-inf tank support).

We can all agree that just by raw stats and in game performance, the Jackson A is hot garbage where it is, and I can at least kinda see where tiger is coming from in the sense that it could swing to being OP if the cost is too low relative to the performance. With that being said, what factor of the performance would make it OP? Probably the fact that it has a 90mm and can cloak with no vet, so at a lower price it would be pretty easy to make a wall of them.

Solution: Lower the price significantly (500 MP + 70 fuel), lock ambush behind a muni paywall and veterancy (muni upgrade can be camo netting, like dingo's, but more expensive since its bigger). Increase its pen chances against panthers, jagdpanthers, tiger 1's, and jpz4/70 to 80% at max range with default ammo but keep the max range at 60. Reduce aim-time (warm-up) on shots to 1 second or less and increase damage to be able to one shot a panther regularly and severely cripple tigers, crank up reload time to 9 seconds. Bump accuracy to 90% since if you miss that one shot you're pretty much fucked since you'll definitely be in range of their gun.

Voila, you have a reasonably priced TD that can very effectively effectively counter panthers but has to put itself in danger to do so and be actively micro'd rather than serving as a static defense (AT guns already serve that role and this thing doesn't have the armor to use the brawler method that Axis TD's can use). Since the reload is also longer and the max range is the same as that of a stug, it would effectively be countered by medium tank/TD spam, especially since it cant hide from them. It's job isn't to counter those tanks, you have M10's and M18's for that and it should be much less cost effective in that role than the other 2 US TD's. It's job is to hunt panthers, and with the lower cost it can actually be used in flanking maneuvers without completely screwing over the US player if it dies since the initial investment would no longer be that of a heavy tank. ACE panther would probably still do reasonably well against it anyways, even with these buffs (and especially with ALRS), so it's not like all panthers would suddenly be useless. Going for Jacksons also means you're going to delay pershings even more, forcing you to drop a total of 13 muni to field them (5 for jackson + 8 extra for pershing), so you better hope your micro with the jacksons is good enough to survive until then if you think you're going to run into KT's. AP would rightfully serve as a tool for allowing the panther to hit way above its weight class (KT, elefant, JT), just as it does on axis tanks. It would no longer be a mandatory muni fee that the US player would need to pay to have a reasonable chance of penning it's intended targets (panthers, tiger 1's, etc).

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3918
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Warhawks97 »

Jagdpanther, Nashorn, Elephant. They all have a strong gun and can camo. I dont see why jacks with its sherman armor should require extra ammo just to camo. All TD can camo, sometimes even those that are not only TD´s.

And since you have to controle a lot already when playing armor doc, it wont help to have a TD that cant ambush to be controled on top of all that. It would end up like current RA doc where you have to micro all your fireflies which can be seen by the enemie. So you will always end up in trouble when panther comes due to low HP, less range and not so good armor pen without ambush or AP.

So, Ambush is a must for this tank.

The pen of this tank is fine or perhaps just a slight buff. If you load AP you get over 90% pen vs Panther. I think thats worse the ammo i pay. With ambush it goes even higher.

So gun is good enough, esspecially with AP/Ambush.


Accuracy should be tweaked. But many tanks suffer from quick accuracy drop. I have had gun fails again you wouldnt believe if you wouldnt see them.


Reload is also not that bad and 9 secs would be insane. No Glass canon TD has that long reload. If we would tag the price arround that what nashorn cost, things would be fine. 500-550 MP and 75 fuel or so.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3063
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MarKr »

We just talked about this and came to this:
- cost lowered to 600MP 75F
- accuracy increased to 100%\100%\90%\85%
- when the 2nd Tank Depot upgrade is purchased, M36 is built with engine upgrade installed
- maybe also lower the CP from 3 to 2?

We would like to avoid any damage increase (as CGar suggested) because with standardized stats it would mean buffing damage on Pershings too and putting camo behind a paywall/vet sounds weird for a TD which has only the Sherman armor and so getting the vet might be a problem and the camo upgrade would be basically a must-have so it would be better to just add the upgrade cost to the basic cost.
The CP drop is there with a question mark because it might lead to people skipping Hellcat just to get Jakcson faster so it would be basically changing one underused unit for another one. However, if ithe CP cost gets lowered, where should the 1CP point be moved?

Opinions?
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3918
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Warhawks97 »

MarKr wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 02:32
We just talked about this and came to this:
- cost lowered to 600MP 75F
- accuracy increased to 100%\100%\90%\85%
- when the 2nd Tank Depot upgrade is purchased, M36 is built with engine upgrade installed
- maybe also lower the CP from 3 to 2?

We would like to avoid any damage increase (as CGar suggested) because with standardized stats it would mean buffing damage on Pershings too and putting camo behind a paywall/vet sounds weird for a TD which has only the Sherman armor and so getting the vet might be a problem and the camo upgrade would be basically a must-have so it would be better to just add the upgrade cost to the basic cost.
The CP drop is there with a question mark because it might lead to people skipping Hellcat just to get Jakcson faster so it would be basically changing one underused unit for another one. However, if ithe CP cost gets lowered, where should the 1CP point be moved?

Opinions?


lowering CP cost would make people skip it.
But if you want to, you could perhaps unlink the TD line from the sherman line. So 76 sherman is not required to get hellcat/jacks and no CP need to be moved.
I always thought its linked so that Jacks gets sufficient CP. But as you think about lowering it, just unlink it and things are fine.



I am on board with this suggestions. However i would test the 550 MP. Its a TD with a heavy gun but still 60 range. IV/70 and Nashorn as reference have 65 and 70 as standard range. And if i and probably any other would have to choose between nashorn or Jacks, most would go for Nashorn.

I am also against any damage increase. But as you fix the accuracy, can you fix it for pershing in the same way?

Also i am not sure but there have been i think a few axis heavies also having 75 accuracy. Would have to check it again though.


And Nashorn shouldnt have 100% accuracy at all ranges.

MEFISTO
Posts: 133
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MEFISTO »

MarKr wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 02:32
We just talked about this and came to this:
- cost lowered to 600MP 75F
- accuracy increased to 100%\100%\90%\85%
- when the 2nd Tank Depot upgrade is purchased, M36 is built with engine upgrade installed
- maybe also lower the CP from 3 to 2?

We would like to avoid any damage increase (as CGar suggested) because with standardized stats it would mean buffing damage on Pershings too and putting camo behind a paywall/vet sounds weird for a TD which has only the Sherman armor and so getting the vet might be a problem and the camo upgrade would be basically a must-have so it would be better to just add the upgrade cost to the basic cost.
The CP drop is there with a question mark because it might lead to people skipping Hellcat just to get Jakcson faster so it would be basically changing one underused unit for another one. However, if ithe CP cost gets lowered, where should the 1CP point be moved?

Opinions?
the problem is not the Jackson stats or cp, it is the path, you have to waste 5cp to make (a good TD) but not enough to hold down a 4cp tiger or 6 cp panther since after 1 shoot it reveal its position, in my opinion Armor doctrine should have all Jacksons, could be like this:
1cp sherman 76mm---1cp helcat------3cp 110 Jackson
.............................I
2cp camouflage Jackson
Also reduce 1 cp for the Jumbo and be able to have both 75mm and 76
and reduce 1cp to the Sherman calliope it will by 4cp after use 5cp on Jacksons or 5cp on a Jumbo.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 360
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by CGarr »

MarKr wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 02:32
We just talked about this and came to this:
- cost lowered to 600MP 75F
- accuracy increased to 100%\100%\90%\85%
- when the 2nd Tank Depot upgrade is purchased, M36 is built with engine upgrade installed
- maybe also lower the CP from 3 to 2?

We would like to avoid any damage increase (as CGar suggested) because with standardized stats it would mean buffing damage on Pershings too and putting camo behind a paywall/vet sounds weird for a TD which has only the Sherman armor and so getting the vet might be a problem and the camo upgrade would be basically a must-have so it would be better to just add the upgrade cost to the basic cost.
The CP drop is there with a question mark because it might lead to people skipping Hellcat just to get Jakcson faster so it would be basically changing one underused unit for another one. However, if ithe CP cost gets lowered, where should the 1CP point be moved?

Opinions?
I'll take what I can get, although 550 MP as said by Hawks would make more sense IMO. The rest would definitely be fine, although as you said yourself, the M18 would definitely be overshadowed by the M36. This is why I suggested the long ass reload. I know 9 seconds is ridiculous, my point was making it long enough that 2 medium tanks would be a solid counter to the jackson since it wouldnt be able to reload before the second kills it, thus maintaining the need for the faster firing M18's. I don't care about the exact value as long as it fits that criteria, was throwing out a ballpark estimate for a long reload.

The extra CP could be put onto the jumbo unlock in exchange for bringing back the 76 jumbo alongside the 75mm one. Sure, it'd delay the pershing further, but the Jackson would actually be a competent heavy TD so that wouldn't be a death sentence. Personally I'd rather the jumbo CP/availability change I just suggest go through while also maintaining the current jackson CP cost, or better yet, doing all that and increasing the latter by another point to 4CP(so basically just adding a point or 2 to the total needed to fill the tree). This would justify the damage increase I suggested, as both jacksons and pershings would come significantly later than their axis equivalents and neither have particularly good range or ALRS (nor should they). These 2 factors taken into account would definitely outweigh a damage increase, as you still have to close distance under threat of retaliation to put said damage to work, with axis equivalents always getting the first shot in a head on engagement and thus forcing the allied player to flank or distract them if he doesn't want to take a hit.

As for putting camo behind a paywall, I suggested that alongside the damage change because I figured a change in role might make this thing easier to balance. Camo TD's are fundamentally obnoxious to play against, so I understand why Tiger would say that the price should stay high. Personally I think it was disingenuous to suggest that while also being fine with Stug's having camo even though it makes them a huge pain in the ass to play against since their camo range is the same as that of an un-camo'd nashorn, but whatever. Making the Jackson more of a hit and run tank, where using distractions, positioning, and the suggested fast aim time allows it to quickly jump into fights, deal heavy damage and run away. As someone who already has decent success doing this with M18's (at least relative to my experiences of setting them to ambush only for them to bounce their shot and immediately get one-tapped by whatever they were shooting at), I think this would work quite well with the Jackson, and it's weird to hear someone say that it can't work when there's already examples of it working in game just fine. I mean clearly speed and good pen were good enough for blitz doc panthers when dealing with pershings or you guys would have given them another option. I don't think I'm going to change your mind with this last point about camo delay, but I figured I'd explain my reasoning.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3918
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Warhawks97 »

The reload time of Medium Tanks is 6-7 sec vs 6.5 - 7.5 of Jackson. So i think thats fine. If you rush into an ambushed jacks, it should hit you hard. Every TD should hit hard. Two cheap mediums can still pose a threat to it, esspecially when not in ambush.

9 sec would make it just dangerous to use it even from ambush since you wont fire a second shot if the target is not dead.
And damage increase is no option. We standardized damage of axis guns few years ago so that we dont have that mess where every unit, although all using the same gun basically, has totally different damage stats. I prefer the "same gun same values" approach.
On top of that, damage goes up by 25% from ambush, bringing the damage to 1000.
The Issue is that the APCR from the 90 mm gun reduces the damage by 15%. The Max possible basic damage is thus reduced to 680 damage or 850 damage from ambush.
Originally, i would have wanted that all AP deals less damage since they dont have HE filler. In the past most had damage buff that got removed. Right now it seems that that we stay with "AP doesnt change damage" and so i would remove the damage reduction from 90 mm guns.

That also affects the Panther vs Pershing thing since the Pershing, when both fire AP which i expect, doesnt have a damage advantage over the Panther.


In vcoh they made it so that M10 had twice the damage vs Tanks which made the 76 sherman upgrade quite obsolete. Just you had to know that in the first place. And most people dont. So that would again just be beneficial for the "corsix dudes" who know every number of the game.




The CP´s are a thing though. Making it 4 CP might result in making Panzer IV H//J obsolete since they cost 3-4 CP, depending on doc.
What i would do instead:

unlink 76 shermans from Hellcat and Jackson. Add 1 CP to Jackson and take one away from Pershing. Alternatively from Calliope or Tank Veterancy.
Jacks for 5 CP doesnt seem so wrong as long as the other TD would actually work as a counter to German mediums. But if the Jacks is the only solution to counter the german mediums, 4 CP would be just fair.




Sooo:


1. Remove damage penalty from 90 mm APCR rounds
2. Drop M36 cost to 550/75.
3. Unlink the Hellcat from 76 sherman. Depending on how the 76 gun performs in future, the Jacks can stay at 5 CP or it gets reduced to 4 in order to help out vs all the Axis mediums.
4. Engine upgrade automatically applied when Tank depot has got its second upgrade.
5. Accuracy buff.


Any change in base damage, Adding paywalls to ambush ability or incredible long reload times, is not needed.

Post Reply