[POLL] jagdpanther

[Krieger Blitzer]

Current jagdPanther price:
1000 ManPower - 180 fuel ____ 1000 Health Points

Proposition:
850 ManPower - 150 fuel ____ 800 Health Points

POLL options:
YES >>> JagdPanther will be changed according to proposition.
NO >>> JagdPanther cost will not be changed.

POLL started 31st of July - 2020 _ ends after 5 days.

[MarKr]

If someone wants a different change, there is no way for them to vote here. I would suggest adding a third option:
Different change (write details in a post)

[rappatix]

I agree, I don't know which of the two to choose because I've almost never used Jagdpanther and therefore barely knows if it's worth the cost or not. The few times I've got it, I probably sucked at using it so.... In fact I probably shouldn't vote because I can't motivate anything with it.... I don't even know what gun it uses....

[hamza kanso]

I think it must be stay at it is

[Krieger Blitzer]

If someone wants a different change, there is no way for them to vote here. I would suggest adding a third option:
Different change (write details in a post)

The 3rd option i think would be typing a post.. in case someone wants to suggest something else.
And i think people already do this, i don't need to mention it.

[Warhawks97]

I agree, I don't know which of the two to choose because I've almost never used Jagdpanther and therefore barely knows if it's worth the cost or not. The few times I've got it, I probably sucked at using it so.... In fact I probably shouldn't vote because I can't motivate anything with it.... I don't even know what gun it uses....

King Tiger, Jagdpanther, Nashorn and Elephant use the same gun. Its the KwK 43 88 mm L/71 gun.

Probably the most potent gun in the game. Jagdtiger has even more power but is less practical in terms of reload time.


The Jagdpanther has a similiar effective armor as the Panther, 70 gun range and with ambush 80 gun range.
Currently 1000 HP. Panthers have 800.

[mofetagalactica]

Only agree if its gonna have the same armor than panther.

[Krieger Blitzer]

No changes to the Jagdpanther armor.. and currently the difference in-game between JagdPanther armor and Panther armor is very small anyways, if not already the same, in fact... Or maybe jagdPanther has slightly better protection against certain weapons, which btw still reflects the reality because jagdpanther had some thicker parts than the Panther on the frontal armor particularly around the 88 gun mount.

[Warhawks97]

Only agree if its gonna have the same armor than panther.

The Panther with skirts has somewhat better armor against 76 guns and 17 pdrs.

76 mm Sherman gun base pen modifer vs Panther: 0.32
76 mm Sherman gun base pen modifier vs Panther_skirts: 0.3
76 mm Sherman gun base pen modifer vs Jagdpanther 0.3231

17 pdr Firefly gun base pen modifer vs Panther: 0.9
17 pdr Firefly gun base pen modifer vs Panther_skirts: 0.8
17 pdr Firefly gun base pen modifer vs Jagdpanther: 0.8831


90 mm Jackson gun base pen modifier vs Panther: 1.3
90 mm Jackson gun base pen modifier vs Panther_skirts: 1.149
90 mm Jackson gun base pen modifier vs Jagdpanther: 0.55


Bazooka base pen modifier vs Panther: 0.3
Bazooka base pen modifier vs Panther_skirts: 0.2
Bazooka base pen modifier vs Jagdpanther: 0.175



The Jagdpanther also has a different crit table. Panther uses "armor", Jagdpanther "armor elite".


The Panther G and D have on top of that a 0.9 received pen modifier.


So who has better armor depends against which weapons you go. Jagdpanther is super resistant to 90 mm guns for example.

[Krieger Blitzer]

So, poll ended with this 10/3 result...
i didn't actually want to create a poll for such a suggestion, but i did it after kwok's hint.

Would be happy to see jagdpanther cheaper on the live release, along with the few other suggestions for Panzer Support mentioned in other topics.

[mofetagalactica]

Pershing slowly getting less and less relevant after these changes lol, at least the alpha changes would help a little with motor and cheaper jacksons if it gets implemented, that if the upkeep of your own shermans or anything you hold in field as US dosn't kill your res gains first lmao.

[Warhawks97]

Pershing slowly getting less and less relevant after these changes lol, at least the alpha changes would help a little with motor and cheaper jacksons if it gets implemented, that if the upkeep of your own shermans or anything you hold in field as US dosn't kill your res gains first lmao.

Jacks is still at 600 in the alpha i think. So its afterall pretty expensive.


The upkeep isnt wrong what US has, its just wrong for the axis. And thats only due to one page in the internet (that is offline now) where old devs got their numbers from. The problem is that this page had on and off-road fuel consumption datas for allied tanks, but not for axis. Thus they used axis on-road consumption values an allied off-road consumption values.

And so, till this day, we suffer just because of that. Because else a Panther would eat a bit more fuel than a Sherman, and not half of it.

[CGarr]

So, poll ended with this 10/3 result...
i didn't actually want to create a poll for such a suggestion, but i did it after kwok's hint.

Would be happy to see jagdpanther cheaper on the live release, along with the few other suggestions for Panzer Support mentioned in other topics.

Agreed, it could use some tweaks (it still has some legacy abilities/stats from when it held more of an ACE role, which is probably why it costs a fuck ton) but the price definitely needs to be lower.

Pershing slowly getting less and less relevant after these changes lol, at least the alpha changes would help a little with motor and cheaper jacksons if it gets implemented, that if the upkeep of your own shermans or anything you hold in field as US dosn't kill your res gains first lmao.

Pershing could honestly probably swap spots with the jumbo unlock on the tree without being OP, it's functionally somewhere between a panther and tiger 1 (both of which come significantly earlier). The jumbo is extremely useful against dug-in opponents, but in saying that, it generally isn't really needed until pretty late into the game (especially considering how big of a fuel investment it is relative to how ass it is at combatting enemy armor).

[Warhawks97]

The issue with jumbo is that it doesnt really tank. It can withstand a few medium tank shells but its usually what the axis Panzer IV H/J can do.

Against bigger guns it could be better in terms of armor.
Also its still easily penetrated by 50 mm guns that shoot from the side while tiger can pretty well withstand the 75 mm sherman guns.
If the jumbo would play its role as heavy armored tank at least, that would help.


And the Pershing, as said, is always so vital bc the medium tanks suck and doesnt deliver damage and the TD´s are often cost ineffective.

[CGarr]

The issue with jumbo is that it doesnt really tank. It can withstand a few medium tank shells but its usually what the axis Panzer IV H/J can do.

Against bigger guns it could be better in terms of armor.
Also its still easily penetrated by 50 mm guns that shoot from the side while tiger can pretty well withstand the 75 mm sherman guns.
If the jumbo would play its role as heavy armored tank at least, that would help.


And the Pershing, as said, is always so vital bc the medium tanks suck and doesnt deliver damage and the TD´s are often cost ineffective.

Not sure if you were responding to me but I'll follow up on the points you brought up anyways.

I suggested switching the jumbo and pershing around because I think it would address 2 problems:

1. The 76mm armed tanks that come before it are super inconsistent in terms of performance because of how terrible their gun stats are. When they pen and manage to kill something, the enemy player gets mad because they lose their tank to a cheaper one, and when they dont (the more common case), their cost effectiveness plummets since the chances of them escaping an engagement against another tank are generally pretty slim due to how trash their armor is (understandably). The pershing, on the other hand, generally performs as one would expect, the gun could be better but its good enough that the game isn't completely unplayable and the axis player probably wont be mad to lose their tanks to it since it's a very expensive investment and a relatively even match for the cheaper panthers (assuming neither player is bad with micro).

2. The jumbo itself is in a kind of dumb spot, considering it is meant to serve as an improved version of the standard M4 sherman in dealing with fortified positions. There isn't really an inherent need to get it early, as in the time frame that one can currently field it, the enemy player will probably not have been able to heavily fortify the entire front, which means M4 shermans would still be good enough to spearhead in the less defended parts of the map. The jumbo's position on the doctrine tree isn't problematic on it's own, but considering the pershing would be a much better fit for that position on the tree (it'd come right after tigers and panthers, and the US player wouldn't feel as though it'd be a better decision to just refrain from building a standard pershing and get the ACE/SP instead), they'd be better off swapping spots. From a logical standpoint, by the time the jumbo would come out in this tree, you would already have access to the pershing so the point you bring up about the Jumbo not really tanking shots from other tanks is moot, as that wouldn't be it's role. It would serve purely as a breakthrough tank meant to deal with static defenses (which, excluding TD shots, it generally can tank hits from) as well as being a buffer between the pershing and ACE/SP to incentivize building the normal pershings rather than waiting unless you're expecting the enemy player to go for a better heavy before then.

[Warhawks97]

Not sure if you were responding to me but I'll follow up on the points you brought up anyways.

I suggested switching the jumbo and pershing around because I think it would address 2 problems:

1. The 76mm armed tanks that come before it are super inconsistent in terms of performance because of how terrible their gun stats are. When they pen and manage to kill something, the enemy player gets mad because they lose their tank to a cheaper one, and when they dont (the more common case), their cost effectiveness plummets since the chances of them escaping an engagement against another tank are generally pretty slim due to how trash their armor is (understandably). The pershing, on the other hand, generally performs as one would expect, the gun could be better but its good enough that the game isn't completely unplayable and the axis player probably wont be mad to lose their tanks to it since it's a very expensive investment and a relatively even match for the cheaper panthers (assuming neither player is bad with micro).

Well, the 76 shermans arent cheaper anymore. Most Panzer IV cost less, including the J.

2. The jumbo itself is in a kind of dumb spot, considering it is meant to serve as an improved version of the standard M4 sherman in dealing with fortified positions. There isn't really an inherent need to get it early, as in the time frame that one can currently field it, the enemy player will probably not have been able to heavily fortify the entire front, which means M4 shermans would still be good enough to spearhead in the less defended parts of the map. The jumbo's position on the doctrine tree isn't problematic on it's own, but considering the pershing would be a much better fit for that position on the tree (it'd come right after tigers and panthers, and the US player wouldn't feel as though it'd be a better decision to just refrain from building a standard pershing and get the ACE/SP instead), they'd be better off swapping spots. From a logical standpoint, by the time the jumbo would come out in this tree, you would already have access to the pershing so the point you bring up about the Jumbo not really tanking shots from other tanks is moot, as that wouldn't be it's role. It would serve purely as a breakthrough tank meant to deal with static defenses (which, excluding TD shots, it generally can tank hits from) as well as being a buffer between the pershing and ACE/SP to incentivize building the normal pershings rather than waiting unless you're expecting the enemy player to go for a better heavy before then.

The main point of jumbo is actually to tank shots from whatever source. Let it be tanks, TD´s, AT guns. Its not just a pillbox destroyer. It leads tanks into combats and tanking all the first shots. Its just bad in doint so.

It would/could work with normal shermans If the 76 would be effective as damage dealer and the Jumbo effective to tank heavy german guns from tanks and defenses.

[CGarr]

Well, the 76 shermans arent cheaper anymore. Most Panzer IV cost less, including the J.

I mean that just further solidifies my point in saying that US could use the pershing sooner since the 76 sherman doesn't fulfill the role well and is apparently hard to balance due to its spammability.

The main point of jumbo is actually to tank shots from whatever source. Let it be tanks, TD´s, AT guns. Its not just a pillbox destroyer. It leads tanks into combats and tanking all the first shots. Its just bad in doint so.

It would/could work with normal shermans If the 76 would be effective as damage dealer and the Jumbo effective to tank heavy german guns from tanks and defenses.

I understand what you're saying from a realism perspective, but in BK all these tanks that normally wouldn't be able to pen with their standard ammo have access to special AP ammo (that probably overperforms when compared to it's real life performance), so they will always have a way of penning the jumbo unless the ammo changes we suggested ever go through (since said changes would limit access to AP). With that being said, trying to make the Jumbo serve as an aggro-magnet in BK probably won't work unless it is given ridiculously high armor values for both the rear and front armor. From a doctrine design perspective, it would make more sense as a buffer between the pershing and SP/ace, as well as an uparmored alternative to the M4 since it can't fill that aggro-sink role due to the lack of effective support and BK's inherently flawed ammo upgrade system.

[mofetagalactica]

I never use AP ammo on any german tank unless im fighting SP.

[Diablo]

I never use AP ammo on any german tank unless im fighting SP.

I guess this could be seen as balance issue on its own. Not like an unfair advantage for axis, but rather that the performance expectance of seemingly comparable guns just isn't met.

[Redgaarden]

I used to use AP ammo on Panther so it could one shot jacksons, it wasn't very balanced. so they removed the dmg modifier. And then decreased hp of jackson.