USA scotts (M8A1)

+1

It's always easier to cry and blame balance instead of going back to the drawing board and adapt. In 2v2 and 3v3 there is nothing to blame but yourself for playing the wrong strat


I've gone against this strat multiple times already and as OKW your best counter is to play as aggressive as possible with smoke. Either leig smoke or plane smoke.

As wehr you can literally go for the old Elefant meta with double pak40 support. (Panther spam with JU87 loiter on maps where ele sucks)

Another argument I hear all the time is that it's "unfun to go against".
Guess what, going against the most sweaty-ass axis builds is the same, or someone thinks it's fun to go against G43 fusi blob with force retreat Offizier, p4 and JT?
Or a-move gren blob with spotting scope brummbar, double pak40 and elefant.

Guess the difference with these last two axis cancer builds is that you're considered a god, but as USF you're a cancer player

Every faction has powerful strats, but they still have all sorts of counters and take time and effort to build towards the super late game like you described (remind me when elephant or JT hits the field again). The scott strat is a lot easier to pull off and occurs alot earlier which allows you to snowball, i have yet to see one reliable counter other then play "aggressive" by running into pathfinders sitting in cover reinforcing from ambulance gl with that.

Imo they should make the scott 2 shot again but allow it to keep its smoke becuase right now its so hard to dive and kill. or increase the scotts price

Everybody says like you have to dive seemingly harmless build with panthers...just to deal with a unit that dies from 3 hits, which often translates to a lot more hits, because panther will have to fire on the move, while the target is cheaper then a T34/76. Cheaper then a tank that is often used as throw away/cannon fodder, when things go south, or to trade for a slow heavy armor. The target is far from slow and has decent target size...

I'm all for a good Scott, but its it is way too good now. I guess the time will tell, but meta is already picked it up, because I see it almost every time on USF in top 200 2v2, while simultaneously I see no Shermans M4A3s. The fact that medium tank with arguably the best AOE in its class became rare on the 2v2 ladder, should say something.

The sherman doesn't satisfy a role against axis meta, right now. Not in teams at least. Most axis players are leaning on their infantry superiority and back it up with dual at guns. An effective scott is just a way better option based on the way people are playing right now.

The sherman doesn't satisfy a role against axis meta, right now. Not in teams at least. Most axis players are leaning on their infantry superiority and back it up with dual at guns. An effective scott is just a way better option based on the way people are playing right now.

The sherman is just shit. I see every other stock medium tank expect the sherman. The unit has nothing to offer. Low armor, low dmg (either vs inf or vs tanks), no utility, no fast timing. Nothing at all. The bulldozer upgrade has to be stock to make this unit useful.

The sherman doesn't satisfy a role against axis meta, right now. Not in teams at least. Most axis players are leaning on their infantry superiority and back it up with dual at guns. An effective scott is just a way better option based on the way people are playing right now.

Not sure what are you talking about, because I main SOV and I always build t34/76. Double AT can be tricky, but doable. Ofc SOV have access to katy to punish the AT guns, but still, very effective in counter attacks, roaming, defending points etc and all things infantry killing related.

Not sure what are you talking about, because I main SOV and I always build t34/76. Double AT can be tricky, but doable. Ofc SOV have access to katy to punish the AT guns, but still, very effective in counter attacks, roaming, defending points etc and all things infantry killing related.

You're just contradicting yourself, sherman cost 20 fuel and 60 munition more than a T76 to be effective vs infantry then USF doesn't have stock access to rocket arty.

Not sure what are you talking about, because I main SOV and I always build t34/76. Double AT can be tricky, but doable. Ofc SOV have access to katy to punish the AT guns, but still, very effective in counter attacks, roaming, defending points etc and all things infantry killing related.

Huh? T34/76 is cheaper and performs way better against infantry while also not being forced to switch ammo types to engage different targets. Plus it has ram. So I don't really know what the argument is here. In teamgames T34 is badass while sherman is just ass.

Huh? T34/76 is cheaper and performs way better against infantry

that's just false. I completely disagree.

You're just contradicting yourself, sherman cost 20 fuel and 60 munition more than a T76 to be effective vs infantry then USF doesn't have stock access to rocket arty.

What are you talking about, even without .50 cal sherman is way better


That's just main cannon. Blue (1) is T34/76, orange (2) is Sherman HE. All vet 0 at range 30.

grey is KT, yellow is Pershing. Done via MMX tool "scatter this"

that's just false. I completely disagree.


What are you talking about, even without .50 cal sherman is way better


That's just main cannon. Blue (1) is T34/76, orange (2) is Sherman HE. All vet 0 at range 30.

grey is KT, yellow is Pershing. Done via MMX tool "scatter this"

Which doesn't contradict what I say. T34-76 is enough as infantry deterrent, once you have it (T34 or Sherman) your main concern is atguns and any other medium tank and superior armor. In this regard T34 is a way better investment, its cheaper and Soviet has access to better support tools to deal with those.

At the end you can argue as much as you like, people have stopped building shermans to do 3xscott for a reason, and this reason is not only that 3xscott are more effective (they also cost more) but also better to fulfill the anti-infantry role.
Sherman is at best a good deterrent vs mainline infantry but terrible once there are other medium tanks and atgun, Scott are bad vs mainline infantry because their auto fire is bad vs moving targets, also very bad vs medium tanks but good vs team weapons. The meta today evolves around team weapons, HMG and atgun, the latest rending medium tank obsolete in team game, that's why nobody build shermans, they're too expensive for what they do even if they do it well. but that's also why people still build T34-76 because they're still cost effective and synergy well with other Soviet tools.

If Scott were to be nerfed, people would simply go back to the old Calliope meta which doesn't include regular shermans but Calliope and rangers.

Which doesn't contradict what I say. ...

have you even once played vs Scott build?

I think it would be better to argue against me using a usf perspective. The fact that you see t34 isn't relevant. Who here is building t34 to rid an area of entrenched wm? No one does that. You get a katty. t34 is good for pressure, once katty has done it's job. It's good for ram.

If you want to compare the t34 and the Sherman you can, but considering the infantry damage that you would do with HE rounds, it's kind of dumb to engage infantry with AP rounds. This is the story the data points won't tell anyone. What happens when that p4 shows up and you have a whole reload cycle to get back into ap mode? Now you are 2 shots down out 4 against a superior unit. T34 doesn't have the option to have this problem. It isn't a good comparison.

I don't know about others, but I mainly want a scott to get rid of entrenched weapon teams of all sorts. It does the job very well. I can't count on the sherman to be as reliable. The Sherman would be able to provide reliable fire support against mainline infantry, but I'm rarely faced with that situation. Mainline infantry nearly always have 2 at guns travelling with them. I don't see soviet players having success engaging this with t34. I see them launch those katty rockets at it though. Yea, they build t34 still, but it's not the one changing the balance of power.

I think it would be better to argue against me using a usf perspective. The fact that you see t34 isn't relevant. Who here is building t34 to rid an area of entrenched wm? No one does that. You get a katty. t34 is good for pressure, once katty has done it's job. It's good for ram.

If you want to compare the t34 and the Sherman you can, but considering the infantry damage that you would do with HE rounds, it's kind of dumb to engage infantry with AP rounds. This is the story the data points won't tell anyone. What happens when that p4 shows up and you have a whole reload cycle to get back into ap mode? Now you are 2 shots down out 4 against a superior unit. T34 doesn't have the option to have this problem. It isn't a good comparison.

you just have to premeditate the rounds and don't yolo the armor, especially if you know that there is P4 roaming around, that's all. Actually you can't yolo the t34/76 either, because you need to roll premium luck to kill a P4.
Also both rounds are the best in its class. If SOV "Land Lease" had a M3A4 instead of 76mm, it would have been broken, imo. So I always was surprised that people still consider different ammo types as a disadvantage.

It's not the ammo types that are the problem, it's the switching time.

It's not the ammo types that are the problem, it's the switching time.

Why? If I'm not mistaken, sherman already has around ~6 seconds reload time on main gun, the same say ammo switching just takes time of one reload cicle. The only thing I cant remember out of my head, if after ammo switching there is another reload cicle forced.

If not, then ammo switching works exactly like any other abilities which affects primary fire, be it HVAP\Stun shot and so on.

There are pretty much only 2 situations where ammo switching has a disadvantage:
1) When you are in the middle of the reload already and you are forced to switch ammo
2) When you are engaged by the enemy armor\inf and you had wrong ammo type before the engagament

Other then that, even when you have to change ammo in the fight, its pretty much the same as a standart reload, as long as you start switching after you fire a shot (for min-maxing purposes).

Most blatant form of axis-biased whine I've seen ina while. I don't want to say the balance team are axis biased but the Scott is finally in a good place and its getting the spotlight shone on it.

I have never advocated any sort of'if you change x then y needs a change' typ stuff because its a cop-out for adapting and proeprly learning the game, but any nerf to the Scott the brummbar needs in turn. Otherwise both are fine.

but any nerf to the Scott the brummbar needs in turn. Otherwise both are fine.

but no the bruhbar is 150 fuel and belongs to wehrmacht it would be very unfair to be a powerful assault vehicle that can 2shot most infantry and support weapons and have a vet 1 barrage that fires rapid shots, firing even faster than the pre nerf zis barrage



/s

that's just false. I completely disagree.


What are you talking about, even without .50 cal sherman is way better

The T34 gets much better MGs on the tank and for free, compared to the Sherman.

DPS comparison at close range:

Coaxial Hull MG: 17 DPS on T34 VS. a measly 5.4 DPS for the Sherman

Vehicle Turret MG: 11.3 DPS T34 with 7 DPS Sherman

So before the .50 cal upgrade, at close range T34 absolutely cleans house versus Sherman with 28.4 DPS on the MGs alone, compared to the Sherman's 12.5 DPS. The .50 cal upgrade doesn't even remedy this, with the Sherman still being shy of the T34, only hitting 26.3 DPS.

Far DPS is less pronounced, but the T34 still has an advantage at all ranges.

As for this chart:


I must admit that this is a bit confusing for me. The chart is labeled: "Damage Dealt by Main Gun" and then the y axis is a percentage. So if I'm understanding this chart correctly, the chart is comparing how much impact the damage of the main gun has on total DPS output.

...meaning that only 10%-30% of the total damage output is determined by the main gun for the T34, which makes sense considering that its MGs are so good.

So yeah definitely it's the better AI tank if you're talking blobs, you're right. I guess that what I was trying to say was that the T34 has way more going for it in a teamgame scenario, where compared to its axis counterparts it's cheaper and is still effective, all while costing 20 fuel and 60 munitions less than the sherman.

...meaning that only 10%-30% of the total damage output is determined by the main gun for the T34, which makes sense considering that its MGs are so good.

the overall DPS curve was far from favorable for t34 as well. I brought up the DPS curve, because nobody bothers read AOE and scatter stats. Did it multiple times specifically for the Sherman, nobody cares.

This does not applies to you, but it is just straight up silly, when I mention that Sherman is actually a good AI tank, while comparing it to t34 and get slapped with statement that T34 is better. It was just a wtf moment for me, since it is the best stock medium in terms of dealing with infantry (AFAIK only vetter OKW P4J can compete) yet it just "at best a good deterrent vs mainline infantry"

The acrobatics that people perform to defend and downplay their fav factions are amazing.

the overall DPS curve was far from favorable for t34 as well. I brought up the DPS curve, because nobody bothers read AOE and scatter stats. Did it multiple times specifically for the Sherman, nobody cares.

You would think that a sherman would be preferable to a t34 in teamgames, because it performs better against blobs, but really it's not the case.

You can bully infantry with the T34 and quickly switch targets to medium tanks as well if you flank them, and you can play aggressively with them because it matters less if you lose them. I just don't feel that way about the Sherman.

Of course this doesn't apply to 1v1. Sherman destroys in 1v1 and there's no question about it.
This does not applies to you, but it is just straight up silly, when I mention that Sherman is actually a good AI tank, while comparing it to t34 and get slapped with statement that T34 is better. It was just a wtf moment for me, since it is the best stock medium in terms of dealing with infantry (AFAIK only vetter OKW P4J can compete) yet it just "at best a good deterrent vs mainline infantry"

The acrobatics that people perform to defend and downplay their fav factions are amazing.

Well just comparing the two in performance for teamgames and the T34 wins easily. Despite costing less fuel and munition, it still performs comparably against single squads of infantry, even better if the Sherman hasn't upgraded the pintle. The Sherman relies on the main gun for damage, as evidenced by your graph, so practically speaking the T34 is more reliable with damage against a single squad.

Sherman is definitely better against blobs, but the blobs you're going to be facing in teamgames are almost always backed up by panthers or at the very least their superior mediums (which you'll need to switch ammo types to even begin to engage if you're trying to whittle down a blob) or simply pgren shreks by the time you've got it out, and Shermans have the standard 4 shots of health (which ofc isn't a problem, but in teamgames it just isn't that great compared to t34)

EDIT: For some reason the second half of this comment got cut off & I dont feel like writing it again in its entirety, but basically I just wanted to reiterate:

The T34 accomplishes what the sherman wants to at a lower price point and identical health pool: bullying infantry and elite squads. If I want to deal with blobs Sherman isn't the way to go because it gets slapped by axis tanks in the backline.

And also the Sherman is very good in 1v1 modes, there's no doubt about it.

The Sherman relies on the main gun for damage, as evidenced by your graph, so practically speaking the T34 is more reliable with damage against a single squad.

That's not really true. Main gun scatter/AOE damage mostly ignores cover and standard/vet TS/RA bonuses, while these heavily affect MG dps. Moving also doesn't affect main gun DPS as much as it does the MGs'. And there's also the fact that the T-34 needs to be facing its hull towards the enemy to deal a large portion of its AI DPS, which is often not practical.

The T-34/76 is a great cost efficient medium, with very good AI for its price, but ultimately the HE Sherman is undeniably better at anti-infantry.