What is up with M8A1(Scott) change?

since you cant read: i talked about the non nerfed scott.

Yeah, I read your post:

1) You didn't say at any point of your post that you are talking about prenerfed Scott (before february). The only hint is the word "fired" instead of fires. Thats not very clear.
2) You replied to comm_ash who was takling about performance of nerfed Scott, so your claim makes even less sense.
3) Prenerfed Scott couldn't fire at ranges over 100 either, so your argument is still wrong.
4) Your argument keeps beeing wrong even if you repeat it like you do at post #55.

Current Scott has no blob control, the whole faction only finds this mechanic in Calliope. That is the basic problem. Not only in playing the faction but also in playing against the faction. Do you want to play versus Calliope for lifetime?

I don't think the scott needs to be at pwerfer/katty levels, but it does need to be respected by infantry. Currently it's not. I use it now. It will get hard hits in. No one respects it like other t4 AI tools. If you hear a katty barrage and you know it's coming for you, do you ignore and continue or do you evade? Pwerfer? Stuka? Caliope? Land mattress?

Your first thought about dealing with a scott should not be your infantry. It's not something you should be trying to solve with infantry, unless you are getting outplayed and you are desperate. I wouldn't want to fight a brumbar with rifles, but some games I'm getting outplayed and doing anything I can.

You can get a pgren sneak on it. The better option is to use a p4/panther/jp4. They are hard counters. lay some mines, the better axis players do. A teller does quite the number on a scott. Axis has tools for EVERY situation. Even if it was the prenerf scott, you still had good tools. Allied moral was still piss poor back in the op scott times. Nerfing it did not impact axis capabilities to destroy it.

There are situations were the old scott would get lucky hits and completely destroy full health axis squads. It was kind of rare, but it was just as fucked up as the brumbar doing it, before the brumbar limiter was put in place. That's why it's important to define the role of the scott. If it's a brumbar role, then it should not be doing one hit squad wipes. If it's a poor mans rocket arty role, then it should do 1 hit kills like the rocket arty ALL do.

The pwerfer is the most efficient sqaud wiper too. It doesn't just pin units, thanks hyperbole. Better players actually lead the barrages and kill off the retreating squads, similar to how top players are chucking grenades into retreat paths. Once you get the timing down you can completely deny infantry to your allied opponent using a max 2 pwerfers(how much pop is that?). The barrage will be recharged by the time any new squads show up.

The main issue with scott is it ability to survive.

Long range, good HP, good mobility, barrage on the move and defensive smoke make the unit difficult to counter.

If one want to balance the unit one should probably first start with making easier to counter and then increase its lethality.

What about panther? This have long range / speed , good mobility too.

I think Its survivability is not enough point to nerf its fire power.

The pwerfer is the most efficient sqaud wiper too. It doesn't just pin units, thanks hyperbole. Better players actually lead the barrages and kill off the retreating squads, similar to how top players are chucking grenades into retreat paths. Once you get the timing down you can completely deny infantry to your allied opponent using a max 2 pwerfers(how much pop is that?). The barrage will be recharged by the time any new squads show up.

Of course it is... at range of 40 lmao.

Jokes aside Scott is a joke.

i think someone at relic doing the balance didnt know what is projectile Scatter, large radius splash damage and blobs have in common.

There are situations were the old scott would get lucky hits and completely destroy full health axis squads

Yeah, even a P4 will do this to full HP allied squads. I think situations like these (with vehicles that aren't meant to be as destructive or wiping instantly) are unintentional and just a result of the implementation of mechanics of cover and individual model pathing especially around objects.

I appreciate your reminder that the Axis have many tools to deal with Scotts which are nowhere near as devastating as tier 4 brumbär/pwerfer or stuka zu fuß.

What about panther? This have long range / speed , good mobility too.

I think Its survivability is not enough point to nerf its fire power.

Point here is that the tenacity of scott amplifies its perfomance. Even if one manages to get the offencive properties correct the unit might still be op due to the fact that is hard to counter.

Imo it would be easier to balance if one remove the defencive smoke. Why does an indirect fire unit needs defencive smoke to begin with?

I am not sure why people compare the scott with rocket artillery. The unit is an assault gun and not rocket artillery.

if you say Scott is an assault gun then it has a right to have smoke.
- they had to stay as long as posible to make bleed damage overtime. Without smoke, 2 shot from anti tank unit kill them.
If you want to take it smoke ? fine. Give it back old power with 55-60 range auto-fire. Axis AT can touch it while it can do the job: " Blob control ".
This is a game even 3-5 M8 scott cant do their job problaly as Blob/Crow control unit. And yet They need smoke to stay aways from 2 shot kills.

if you say Scott is an assault gun then it has a right to have smoke.
- they had to stay as long as posible to make bleed damage overtime. Without smoke, 2 shot from anti tank unit kill them.
If you want to take it smoke ? fine. Give it back old power with 55-60 range auto-fire. Axis AT can touch it while it can do the job: " Blob control ".
This is a game even 3-5 M8 scott cant do their job problaly as Blob/Crow control unit. And yet They need smoke to stay aways from 2 shot kills.

assault guns generally do not come with stock defencive smoke.

assault guns job is not blob control it is indirect/direct fire support

Finally I do not want to "take away smoke", I pointed that the unit is hard to counter and reducing its tenacity would open the way to improve its offencive capabilities without becoming op.

1/ but how can you provide indirect fire if the chassic cant afford take damage ?. That why M8 Scott is not Assault gun as you want, History and game names it as howie motor carrier !
2/ Hard to counter is the same as every mobile indirect unit including rocket arty. Dont forget M8 Damage is suitable overtime, not Burst-type. As long as it stay around frontline, there is a chance AT unit can hit it. 2 Shot is not much aways.
3/ And again, M8 Scott Orginal design is blob control in the way that Faction fuction. Every thing had to follow Rifleman to do a combine arms. Taking down it power (both Autofire-barrage) and no giving any equal buff/solution is terrible move.

Your ideas and Community balance team just force people from top tier to causual pick CalliOP because everyone KNOW M8 cant do a job even get 2-3 units.
" Why I pick it when Calliop can do the same job better ? Why I had to pay so much mirco tax to gain little advantage on the field ? "

1/ but how can you provide indirect fire if the chassic cant afford take damage ?. That why M8 Scott is not Assault gun as you want, History and game names it as howie motor carrier !
2/ Hard to counter is the same as every mobile indirect unit including rocket arty. Dont forget M8 Damage is suitable overtime, not Burst-type. As long as it stay around frontline, there is a chance AT unit can hit it. 2 Shot is not much aways.
3/ And again, M8 Scott Orginal design is blob control in the way that Faction fuction. Every thing had to follow Rifleman to do a combine arms. Taking down it power (both Autofire-barrage) and no giving any equal buff/solution is terrible move.

Your ideas and Community balance team just force people from top tier to causual pick CalliOP because everyone KNOW M8 cant do a job even get 2-3 units.
" Why I pick it when Calliop can do the same job better ? Why I had to pay so much mirco tax to gain little advantage on the field ? "

Scott is not an assault gun because I want it to be but becuase it was desinged as such.
According to wikipedia:

US and UK forces also deployed vehicles designed for a close support role, but these were conventional tanks whose only significant modification was the replacement of the main gun with a howitzer. ..The M8 Scott, based on the chassis of the M5 Stuart light tank, was also an assault cannon and carried a 75 mm short howitzer....

My "ideas" are not forcing anything, Relic is responbile for this game and not me , so lets avoid the blame game.

75 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M8 Scott history
From the very beginning of their involvement in the Second World War, the Americans faced the difficulty of advancing artillery at the same pace as tanks and infantry. Hence the idea of ​​self-propelled guns to provide continuous support to the assault units while allowing to reinforce the firepower during the fixed or defensive phases.

To the extent that this self-propelled cannon is not a battle tank, the emphasis is laid on its ability to move and of course on its firepower.
Let me put a orginal design of M8 Scott to you. As I said, it names is Howitzer Motor Carriage.
That why M8 scott in game stick in second line, provide Firepower to crow control over time for Rifleman to push up, ping down AT. And because it had to stay in second line meaning AT, Tank or tank hunter team can touch it. So the agruement " Hard to counter " is not a strong point.

The key M8 scott hardly about Firepower-attack range-mobility/survibility but rather the way of inf stay in yellow cover (well, CoH1 is much better than CoH2 in that espect)
If we cant fix this first, then every indirect fire can wipe left and right.

75 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M8 Scott history
From the very beginning of their involvement in the Second World War, the Americans faced the difficulty of advancing artillery at the same pace as tanks and infantry. Hence the idea of ​​self-propelled guns to provide continuous support to the assault units while allowing to reinforce the firepower during the fixed or defensive phases.

To the extent that this self-propelled cannon is not a battle tank, the emphasis is laid on its ability to move and of course on its firepower.
Let me put a orginal design of M8 Scott to you. As I said, it names is Howitzer Motor Carriage.
That why M8 scott in game stick in second line, provide Firepower to crow control over time for Rifleman to push up, ping down AT. And because it had to stay in second line meaning AT, Tank or tank hunter team can touch it. So the agruement " Hard to counter " is not a strong point.

In sort it is an assault gun, glad to see we got that out of the way.

and again, it is not assault gun. Please read it names.
If you want it as assault gun. then fine, BUFF it firepower !

and again, it is not assault gun. Please read it names.
If you want it as assault gun. then fine, BUFF it firepower !

Scott in real life was an assault gun according to wiki, even the description you provided is that of an assault gun.

Once more I have to point out that I am not the one balancing the game and thus I can not buff the firepower.

This is a game even 3-5 M8 scott cant do their job problaly as Blob/Crow control unit. And yet They need smoke to stay aways from 2 shot kills.

AFAIK only HEAT rounds 2 shot Scott, otherwise it is a 3 shot kill from 160 dmg cannon.

But I agree, if lethality is increased considerably some of its defensive capabilities should be taken + increased its reload speed, but I highly doubt it will be done.

One of the routes to improve Scott's performance can be just buffing far AOE distance from 4 to 4.5. This slightly improves AOE curve and chance to deal damage without touching scatter. Or just buffing far AOE damage.

In team games Cali pretty much must have since it is in the best teamgame commanders. So the current design is just mobile light howitzer to push away team weapons, which Scott imo is quite mediocre at.