StuG III G

Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2020, 00:05 AMLago

Short answer?

For an equivalent fuel expenditure:
Lighter TDs win against medium armour and lose against heavy armour.
Heavier TDs win against medium armour more slowly and win against heavy armour.

Why would you risk going for a medium TD build when the opponent can go for a heavy tank and render them ineffective?

An example of a light TD done well is the Puma. It's indisputably a light TD: it specialises against vehicles worth 100 FU and less, and you'd never think of the Puma when deciding what to build against an IS-2.

But an IS-2's worth of Pumas does beat an IS-2.

How?

• It's fast enough to close in on the IS-2.
  
• Its smoke canisters allow it to survive fairly well against an IS-2.
  
• It has a powerful veterancy ability it can use to stun single targets.
  
• It has a close-range penetration spike that allows a group to out-DPS an IS-2 at point blank range.

If light TDs are to be truly viable in the era of heavy tanks, they all need what the Puma's got: utility abilities that are good at controlling a single target, and more importantly close range penetration spikes.

They shouldn't be better than their heavier counterparts, but they should win in numbers.

Otherwise why risk building a tank destroyer that loses to a generalist?

Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2020, 11:27 AMT.R. Stormjäger

SU76 just needs switchable shells and 40 range HE shells with the same stats as the Stug III E.

Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2020, 11:30 AMVipper

That would simply make it OP. It would fill both AI and AT role adequately even with 40 range.

Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2020, 11:35 AMT.R. Stormjäger

That’s literally the Soviet design: Generalist units that can fit dual roles. If that’s op its mobility could be toned down.

Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2020, 11:42 AMVipper

And that is current implementation.

Its AI does not need become "always on" since these "generalist" soviet units are supposed to fill the role worse than "specialized" units. Having 10 less range than Stug -E would make it OP by comparison since it feel the role of both Stug E and Stug G.

Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2020, 11:45 AMT.R. Stormjäger

Except it would be less potent than the G, less armoured and lower AT capabilities, while it would also be less Armoured than the E with lower range and lower mobility.

It really wouldn’t be OP and again if it ends up being OP a nerf to vet and mobility would bring it in line.

Jump back to quoted post2 Feb 2020, 15:53 PMWiderstreit

1vs1 it is good, on all other game modes it gets worse and worse. Up to 3vs3 it gets impossible to play without dive-suicide because of the massive Firefly/Jackson spams and everything outranges.

It would need a non-doc stationary 62,5 range ability, so it could work at long-range AT in game modes PaK40 gets obsolete because of Arty. So it works like MaderIII in CoH1.

Jump back to quoted post2 Feb 2020, 15:44 PMblancat

cheap spammable TD unit

stug is fine

Jump back to quoted post2 Feb 2020, 20:07 PMMazianni

I don't think anyone is going to give a 280mp 90fuel TD with full 160 damage shots the best range outside of heavy TDs, especially when the requirement is just being stationary, something TDs generally should be most of the time anyways.

Jump back to quoted post3 Feb 2020, 09:40 AMWiderstreit

Maybe giving it an upgrade for 30 fuel and 100mp to make it a Jagdpanzer4 clone

Jump back to quoted post3 Feb 2020, 09:40 AMWiderstreit

OR give it 140 damage instead of 160, only to close the missing gap of non-doc long-range. Don't forget it would be immobile in that mode, not able to hunt, only force Allii to use their brain with their tank-hunters.