USA scotts (M8A1)

M8 scott, Pathfinder even Jdpanzer 4 thread have a same problem:
- IS this unit OP when it stand alone ?
- Is it OP due to the combination with another unit ? Why and proof ?
- Is it OP because of the natural invironment (1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4), teamwork, L2P, player habits and the stat go with it ?
- Is it breaking faction core design, game design like.. ahem, OPtruppen... ?
- IS there any Static number, correct data about how OP it is ?.
- Solution and shit happen before and after the buff, nerf, changing ?.

read above. A lot of things was said why the unit is overperforming.

I'm tired of people being dismissive, downplaying faction strengths and sometimes straight up being rude. I even brought up several VODs, but it seems that everyone and their mom are playing better then those guys (Duffmann and Dirty_finisher).

I'd rather save my nerves and continue spamming Soviets on 2v2.

People were comparing the AI power of both vehicles, that's why I responded in regards to their AI power only.

USF is doing fine since the recent patches with 52/51/50/47% win ratios across all game modes respectively. The issue with balancing their 4v4 performance inherently comes down to the fact that Relic decided not to give them stock rocket arty, which is something we couldn't fix as we weren't allowed to put the Calliope in the basic roster. The commanders that bring heavy indirect (Priest, Calliope or Paths with Scotts) will always be meta because of this. UKF has the same exact issue.

You're nickpicking what suit your vision, or you're just reading the last post of each thread. It has always been about overall effectiveness of both units and a focus on DPS at the end because that's the only thing that's go for the Sherman and is easily spammable on a forum@ look the AI damage stat the sherman is better!!!! with 0 care for context.

Now since your so good yourself by your playercard, tell us why everybody here complain about a unit that have far less IA damage and requires to be pack in 3 + extended vision from another unit to be really effective when the Sherman is so far better in that matter. Why nobody complains about Sherman and Pathfinder? Are people complaining about Scott IA damage at the end or something else like its survivability vs reckless panther dives? Do the supposedly superior IA from the sherman really matter during a game? Or is it just an overkill that brings in reality nothing effective you can count on.


Those stats means nothing at the moment since everyone playing USF in 2vs2 is actually doing Scott&Path, 4vs4 the same thing and 3vs3 a joke as usual. Do you think you've achieve something good with the balance when a faction is played building only 2 units supposedly being support type? Do you think the balance is working when everyone is avoiding building riflemen or light vehicle on teamgame?

We're in reality far from a debate around Calliope or Priest vs scott but a build that avoid building any of USF peak. No riflemen, no light vehicle, no sherman, only path, hmg, optional atgun, optional jackson, zook and Scott.

You're nickpicking what suit your vision, or you're just reading the last post of each thread. It has always been about overall effectiveness of both units and a focus on DPS at the end because that's the only thing that's go for the Sherman and is easily spammable on a forum@ look the AI damage stat the sherman is better!!!! with 0 care for context.

Now since your so good yourself by your playercard, tell us why everybody here complain about a unit that have far less IA damage and requires to be pack in 3 + extended vision from another unit to be really effective when the Sherman is so far better in that matter. Why nobody complains about Sherman and Pathfinder? Are people complaining about Scott IA damage at the end or something else like its survivability vs reckless panther dives? Do the supposedly superior IA from the sherman really matter during a game? Or is it just an overkill that brings in reality nothing effective you can count on.


Those stats means nothing at the moment since everyone playing USF in 2vs2 is actually doing Scott&Path, 4vs4 the same thing and 3vs3 a joke as usual. Do you think you've achieve something good with the balance when a faction is played building only 2 units supposedly being support type? Do you think the balance is working when everyone is avoiding building riflemen or light vehicle on teamgame?

We're in reality far from a debate around Calliope or Priest vs scott but a build that avoid building any of USF peak. No riflemen, no light vehicle, no sherman, only path, hmg, optional atgun, optional jackson, zook and Scott.

What would there to be to complain about with a Sherman + Pathfinder combo?

The Sherman doesn't synergise with Pathfinders in the way that the Scott does, due to its rather worse range. What sort of comparison even is this?

What would there to be to complain about with a Sherman + Pathfinder combo?

The Sherman doesn't synergise with Pathfinders in the way that the Scott does, due to its rather worse range. What sort of comparison even is this?

The same conclusion you've reach. IA damage isn't the A&O when comparing sherman and other tanks. If sherman IA damage was such a thing then it would perfectly feet with pathfinders providing vision for the sherman to snipe and deal high casuality damage from max range.

What would there to be to complain about with a Sherman + Pathfinder combo?

The Sherman doesn't synergise with Pathfinders in the way that the Scott does, due to its rather worse range. What sort of comparison even is this?

You're expecting one of the most biased USF-only fanbois to make reasonable comparisons. He literally goes on these delusional "okay fine it's statistically superior in anti-infantry damage but it's not better in anti-infantry capability" rants every other week, we just gotta get used to it.

Meanwhile I'm just getting triggered by him using "Infantry Anti".

The same conclusion you've reach. IA damage isn't the A&O when comparing sherman and other tanks. If sherman IA damage was such a thing then it would perfectly feet with pathfinders providing vision for the sherman to snipe and deal high casuality damage from max range.

You don't quite seem to understand - or deliberately misinterpret and draw out of context - what both Pip and Sander were saying.

But, in order to get back to the original topic and to put things into perspective; the new Scott barrage (at least if I got the stat changes after the last round of patches right) dishes out roughly the same AI DPS as the HE-Sherman (with pintle and hull/coax firing)... albeit at a range of 75 m instead of the Sherman's 35 m! That should give you a slight hint at least why the Scott-PF combo is so powerful and why any comparison with the Sherman would be nonsense (which no one attempted to do anyway, for that reason).

The same conclusion you've reach. IA damage isn't the A&O when comparing sherman and other tanks. If sherman IA damage was such a thing then it would perfectly feet with pathfinders providing vision for the sherman to snipe and deal high casuality damage from max range.

imagine you thinking this way that you comment in a puplic forum that the sherman pathfinder combo would be identical to a scott pathfinder combone....

imagine this only..

You don't quite seem to understand - or deliberately misinterpret and draw out of context - what both Pip and Sander were saying.

But, in order to get back to the original topic and to put things into perspective; the new Scott barrage (at least if I got the stat changes after the last round of patches right) dishes out roughly the same AI DPS as the HE-Sherman (with pintle and hull/coax firing)... albeit at a range of 75 m instead of the Sherman's 35 m! That should give you a slight hint at least why the Scott-PF combo is so powerful and why any comparison with the Sherman would be nonsense (which no one attempted to do anyway, for that reason).

Which remain a barrage. But we agree on it doesn't make sense to compare two type of unit. One to counter mainline the other static and team weapons.

Which remain a barrage. But we agree on it doesn't make sense to compare two type of unit. One to counter mainline the other static and team weapons.

The Scott's autoattack also outranges the Sherman's, it isnt just the barrage. The point remains that Pathfinder + Sherman isnt meaningfully comparable to Scott + Pathfinder.

...

Probably VSL, Sturmtiger, Penals, Comet and so on nerfs were mistakes then, thx for clearing this out.

Golden Rule of RTS games: "If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid"

Conversely,

"If it's not stupid and it doesn't work, it's stupid."

Probably VSL, Sturmtiger, Penals, Comet and so on nerfs were mistakes then, thx for clearing this out.

Also post rework Falls with fausts, 70 range ISU aka "autowin VP camper", pre nerf 7men cons, pre nerf heavy tanks aka "had my squad just evaporated?", no tech Command Panther. Seems like those needed a measured dose of l2p

pre nerf heavy tanks aka "had my squad just evaporated?"

que normal tigers getting random 5 model OHK shots at maximum range while moving


King tigers, enough said.

que normal tigers getting random 5 model OHK shots at maximum range while moving


King tigers, enough said.

Lucky once-in-a-thousand scatter shots on clumped units isn't anywhere close to the bullshit Tiger/IS2/Pershing of 2019.

IS2 used to have KT armour and came at the 18 minute mark while two-shotting squads. Tiger would wipe squads even if they instantly retreated after the first shot landed. Heavy tanks could comfortably stomp two mediums but cost only 1.5 times the amount and hit the field three or four minutes after your opponent's first medium tank. No one wants to go back to those pre-nerf levels of heavy tank cancer when not using a Heavy Tank commander guaranteed a loss.

These aren't once in a thousand. Nearly any tank with sufficient AOE can score a hit like this if a squad is near a world object that the shell can collide with. The game will send the "miss" into that object which will kill your whole squad if close enough.

Literally years later, I come back to this forum, and it is just the same cycle of dishonesty trying to nerf whatever the latest cheese strat is to come out and try to challenge the stale, static, long-range, open-lane combat meta.

No reasonable changes allowed, particularly because nobody maining Axis wants a quid-pro-quo balance change on their end. This time the subject of so much drama is apparently a fucking barrage ability of all things. Did people forget how to spread their units out at some point in the last few years? Is moving AT guns no longer possible?

I've never been on a site with so many babies, or so much dishonesty. Can anyone articulate, clearly, what the most pressing problem is with these units? It's been 16 fucking pages and whatever the singular issue is just gets lost in the back and forth of irrelevant "faction design" bullshit that gets brought up every other page. Were Scotts rofl-stomping Ober hordes with Pathfinder vision or something? With their barrage? How? You can just move out of the way - it's a barrage. With their auto-attack, then? Wouldn't that put the Scott in AT gun range?

How many of these Scotts are being bought? How much fuel and manpower is going into synergizing these two units with no counter-mobility potential and barely any AT ability (outside zooking up your Pathfinders, maybe.) What are Axis spending fuel and manpower on in the face of this build?

Sure, if it's really this tough for someone in a teamgame to dive one of these things, remove the skillsmoke, or gate it behind Vet 3 or something. The escape smoke canisters have been cancer in almost every form they take. I don't understand how this unit almost nobody used has suddenly somehow become a problem after so many nerfs, though. Like Soviets, USF has always crutched on HE firepower once their target_size infantry weapons stop being useful vs Axis elite infantry, but the Scott has never been particularly good at this. Is the state of the balance really so bad that people are using it instead of Sherman spam or Calliope docs?

Is this like, purely a 4v4 concern? Since when did this forum even pretend to care about 4v4 balance? Allies need practically any cheese they can get in that mode, and that's been the way of things for years.

.

they changed the scott into a barrage weapon, which fires faster than its auto attack. With this in mind, people started spamming pathfinders and rushed to make x2 scotts.


This basically countered machine gun spam because pathfinders could completely avoid them, as they saw them well before the MG saw them. And then people used the pathfinder vision to barrage out any support weapons that they spotted


TLDR path cheese into scott cheese makes MG-42s cry

they changed the scott into a barrage weapon, which fires faster than its auto attack. With this in mind, people started spamming pathfinders and rushed to make x2 scotts.


This basically countered machine gun spam because pathfinders could completely avoid them, as they saw them well before the MG saw them. And then people used the pathfinder vision to barrage out any support weapons that they spotted


TLDR path cheese into scott cheese makes MG-42s cry

you just speak my god damn mind.

Don't forget this pathfinder can camo to provide high LoS too.

Currently as Ostheer I use my 251 halftrack and turn on OP mode to spot pathfinders (firing flare for LOS / minimap detect) and my OKW mate makes JLI to detect through minimap.

they changed the scott into a barrage weapon, which fires faster than its auto attack. With this in mind, people started spamming pathfinders and rushed to make x2 scotts.


This basically countered machine gun spam because pathfinders could completely avoid them, as they saw them well before the MG saw them. And then people used the pathfinder vision to barrage out any support weapons that they spotted


TLDR path cheese into scott cheese makes MG-42s cry

Axis mains whenever they can’t have everything their way. Heaven forbid they use their brains for once.