USA scotts (M8A1)

Everything I've seen from the scott in most games i've observed recently seems to show it being EXTREMELY effective, especially when the USF player has two of them (Though this, of course, takes 20 population).

They're used to fantastic effect in a lot of Tightrope's recent casts, reliably obliterating team weapons, and providing a lot of firepower against infantry as well.

Getting 20 pop of scotts (without pf)just to (hard) counter units of 5 to 8 pop a piece isent what id call balanced.

I personaly havent seen scotts when single or without pf do their job well. But i might just be watching the wrong games and suck at using it.

Getting 20 pop of scotts (without pf)just to (hard) counter units of 5 to 8 pop a piece isent what id call balanced.

I personaly havent seen scotts when single or without pf do their job well. But i might just be watching the wrong games and suck at using it.

You're hardcountering MGs, other mortars, and AT guns, while also providing strong fire-support vs any other infantry.

It's 20 pop vs 21 pop (Assuming your opponent has two AT guns and one MG, which is fairly standard for Ostheer especially. This number rises if the opponent has any other team weapons.)

On top of this is the further utility vs infantry, though bothering to make a population-to-population comparison there is a bit pointless.

Part of what I'd consider the benefit over the Scott vs something like a Werfer, Katyusha, or Stuka is the constant pressure they create. Their barrage has less than half the cooldown of rocket artillery, and they can still contribute to a fight even when its on cooldown. People talk about the Scott as though it fires confetti for some reason, and I've never really understood why.

You can do the same with 1 unit as Ostheer, which doesn't cost as much popcap.

Fun fact is you don't even need to associate it to a doctrinal unit to maximize its potential, a single pioneer is enough to spot for it.

You can do the same with 1 unit as Ostheer, which doesn't cost as much popcap.

Fun fact is you don't even need to associate it to a doctrinal unit to maximize its potential, a single pioneer is enough to spot for it.

Well if we ignore that it cant shoot over obstacles, it has slower rate of fire, it have to exlose itself to ATguns\TDs, that enemy inf always can see it unless pre-fired and that it dosnt have turret ... then you would be right.

Well if we ignore that it cant shoot over obstacles, it has slower rate of fire, it have to exlose itself to ATguns\TDs, that enemy inf always can see it unless pre-fired and that it dosnt have turret ... then you would be right.

He's talking about the Werfer, not the Brummbar. Though the Werfer isnt the same thing, and doesn't act the same way, and using it as the counterexample like that misses the point entirely.

Except non-doctrinal USF has neither rocket artillery nor anything with anywhere close the combination of raw stopping power and durability of a Brummbar. The Scott acts like no other unit because it has to fit a very unique niche.

Well if we ignore that it cant shoot over obstacles, it has slower rate of fire, it have to exlose itself to ATguns\TDs, that enemy inf always can see it unless pre-fired and that it dosnt have turret ... then you would be right.

Why would we ignore the armor? why would we ignore that if it fire so slowly its because it 2 shots any squad in game?

The unit has its Cons, as much as the Scott but their goal are similar, bleeding opponents. Scott needs the barrage to take on an atgun, Brumbar can simply sit in front of it, Scott can shot over obstacles, Brumbar can't, you need 2 Scotts to be effective, one brumbar is enough etc...

The scott can not hard counter an at gun, it has to fire from within range of the atgun. It can be done, but it's very dangerous. If you're outside the cone, it works great.

The scott can not hard counter an at gun, it has to fire from within range of the atgun. It can be done, but it's very dangerous. If you're outside the cone, it works great.

The Scott's barrage has a range of 80. It doesn't need to be within range of an AT gun to fire upon it.

You're hardcountering MGs, other mortars, and AT guns, while also providing strong fire-support vs any other infantry.

It's 20 pop vs 21 pop (Assuming your opponent has two AT guns and one MG, which is fairly standard for Ostheer especially. This number rises if the opponent has any other team weapons.)

On top of this is the further utility vs infantry, though bothering to make a population-to-population comparison there is a bit pointless.

Part of what I'd consider the benefit over the Scott vs something like a Werfer, Katyusha, or Stuka is the constant pressure they create. Their barrage has less than half the cooldown of rocket artillery, and they can still contribute to a fight even when its on cooldown. People talk about the Scott as though it fires confetti for some reason, and I've never really understood why.

You are right about the pop to pop comparison being pointless.

The constant pressure is also correct. Imo its not very high pressure. Nerfing the scotts survivability by removing the smoke and increasing its one hit kill radius a bit would do the trick.

?? Jackson armor was nerfed last year because it has a chance to bounce P4 at max range. We're talking about RNG here. The nerf consisted on removing a 10% chance to bounce at max range. Which was solely done in regard to please a certain portion of the player base. The same population that say it's fine if the P4j bounce 4 times consecutively atgun, because its RNG.

Calliope efficiency has been nerf long time ago that's not the topic, last nerf was about its armor and hitpoint because some players find it unfair that RNG could decide against their will. Here again, the balance team did the perfect change to make sure RNG isn't involved anymore unless missing the shot.

There are no more RNG going in favor for USF, Jackson, Calliope, Sherman, Scott are all unable to bounce anything (kidding, sherman can sometime once every year). The last units able to get some favorable RNG are the Pershing and heavier variant of sherman which are irrelevant on teamgame.

So why do you think people prefer going for Path&Scott? Because this strat reduce the need for favorable RNG.

I don't even disagree with the fundamental premise that USF right now is probably the weakest faction, I just hate your irrational fanboyism and unreasonable approach, especially when it comes to the way you REEEEE about nerfs to OP units being some sort of "Axis balance team conspiracy".

I don't have much of an opinion on Scotts since there are very few people playing USF and I'm still facing PTSD from Ostruppen-sniper auto-losses on Langres.

Why would we ignore the armor? why would we ignore that if it fire so slowly its because it 2 shots any squad in game?

The unit has its Cons, as much as the Scott but their goal are similar, bleeding opponents. Scott needs the barrage to take on an atgun, Brumbar can simply sit in front of it, Scott can shot over obstacles, Brumbar can't, you need 2 Scotts to be effective, one brumbar is enough etc...

Mainly because Brummbar needs it armor since it actually HAVE to stay on the field to shoot and recieve damage in prosses. Again, sure brummbar can 2 shot squads (but relistically you need to hold-fire and attack ground to do it consistently so additional micro is requred), but it cant do it from the distance which requres you to dive it\push. Again, the reason brummar has its armor - because its exposed to TDs\AT guns\Inf\Snares constantly, if the brummar is shooting at you, then its in range to be attacked back. Well unless its using its vet 1 ability, but it has huge cooldown so who cares.

Scott on the other hand can do it from the distance where its not threated by anything unless enemy is diving you AND on top of the fact that the only way enemy can get you - push the attack (which on its own forces enemy to play on your terms) but not only that.
Even if enemy is diving you, you still have 2 hits window to survive, you still can use smoke on top of that and you can de-crew scott to mess up enemy tank firing and force it to stop-A move it in order to finish it. And all of this on the unit which effectively can stay out of enemy range\behind sight blockers and not even need to be exposed to the enemy. And you can safely add RNG aswell, that your diving tank can miss on the move, hit something and so on.

It really reminds me when zu fuss requred 2 shots to get killed and was effectively almost immortal to LVs dive and even diving it with single tank didnt garantee success.

Scott mobility should be reduced and it should lose the panzer tac smoke.

Scott mobility should be reduced and it should lose the panzer tac smoke.

Mobility is the USF factional trait, though. I'd much rather than Smoke and Durability were reduced, while keeping mobility (close to) as it is. High mobility (When the Unit is used as it is "supposed" to be) provides a potentially higher skill-cap, which would be a shame to lose. I might agree that 7 speed is a little ludicrous for the type of vehicle that it is, though.

High durability in rearline units is something that should really be avoided.

Show Spoiler

Maybe because the Scott Needs its mobility and range because it doesn't have any armor. Maybe it needs its smoke because a Jackson is never going to kill a Panther in less than 3 shots. maybe... you should stop diminishing Brumbar peak and capability and overall Axis capacity to respond to it.
If Smoke is so good for the scott, then what it is for every single vehicle you can field as Ostheer just picking the right doctrine the same way USF pick the right doctrine to support Scott.

Maybe it needs its smoke because a Jackson is never going to kill a Panther in less than 3 shots.

The Scott (a backline artillery unit that take three shots from the Panther to kill) needs smoke because a Jackson can't kill the Panther in three shots?

Does the Panzerwerfer, Katyusha, Stuka, etc need smoke and enough health to survive three shots from an opposing tank, just in case an enemy tank tries to dive it? We wouldn't want there to be any way for someone to kill a backline unit, after all, even if you leave it out of position.

The scott is powerful when you have more than 1. I've seen it in 4v4 games where one USF player gets 1-2 Jacksons and 3-5 scotts which wipe inf going for the VPs. Now the problem here I think is the rate of fire and damage to inf models on the move. If the rate of fire was nerfed very slightly and damage was reduced a tiny bit, it would be better, possibly.

The problem is in team games people protect the scotts with hordes of tank destroyers/at guns/at infantry. And their mobility allows them to move quickly from one side of the map to the other.

Alternatively as some have suggested, nerfing mobility could help.

The Scott (a backline artillery unit that take three shots from the Panther to kill) needs smoke because a Jackson can't kill the Panther in three shots?

Does the Panzerwerfer, Katyusha, Stuka, etc need smoke and enough health to survive three shots from an opposing tank, just in case an enemy tank tries to dive it? We wouldn't want there to be any way for someone to kill a backline unit, after all, even if you leave it out of position.

Katyusha and stuka and werfer are all alpha dmg units. They barrage, kill plenty of models in skilled hands and get the f*** back to base. Scott on the other hand needs to stay on the frontlines to be effective, and with 50 Autofire range, you won't be using it much except for the smoke barrage. Scott usually arrives the last, if it arrives at all (speaking for 3v3). With 50 autofire range, you won't be using it for barrages much because they are quite accurate, and against skilled opponents, you won't really kill paks or raketen or MGs. Will damage it a lot, but not kill. Most people I play against usually move the pak or MG after the first shell lands. It's not that hard in 3v3 as you're not fighting all over the map, but on a certain "VP lane". It takes 3-5 seconds to move the pak/mg to a safer spot to deny the scott barrage whilst not losing anything in terms of vision for shooting the pak (since the maps are lane-y and most sightblockers are destroyed in Scott timing).
I don't think I've ever had a scott survive if I use it to autofire against blobs (late game double paks kill it in 3 seconds). I even consider myself to be quite good at micro and using both reverse and hold fire, etc, but unless the vehicle has 99999 acceleration, you won't get out in time.
And for barrages. Again. Not really something I take to displace MGs or Paks because the barrage really is accurate. If you see where the first shell lands, you don't have to move the weapon team a lot to deny the scott barrage (eg, you see calliope or katy or werfer or stuka, you get the FU*K out because the AOE is huge).

The only real use for Scotts in late game is the smoke. Smoke is the saving grace for Scotts in teamgames. The smoke barrage is long range, has excellent spread and scatter and really blocks. You won't kill anything, but you will buy yourself some time to organize a defense/offense.

Again. This is for 3v3+. I can't talk for 1v1. I'm guessing the low AOE but highly accurate barrages are more useful there, as just damaging a unit is enough, and it's much harder to manage your army across all map, so a scott barrage will get a few hits more in, before the MG/pak/raketen... displace

Talking about the scott as a backline unit is not really transparent. It's not a fronline unit, but definitely not a backline one as well. Somewhere in between. A pak howi is a backline unit.

Scott needs a rework. All these push/pull changes won't really fix the core problem: it's overlap with pak howi. Right now they are both barraging units. Pak howi deals more damage and has better AOE (+ better veterancy) but is really really slow and easy to kill (the 5->6 models made it 1% more survivable). Scott is quite agile but has low dmg/AOE and a short autofire range.

|Plus|

Both suck vs blobs:
Pak howi because it's slow to rotate and fire, and after the last AOE nerf, doesn't punish as much. Also, the shells take quite long to land.
Scott because it has low AOE but high accuracy (you generally want scatter vs blobs for both shock effect and more dmg) and short autofire.

Why scott was not given an autofire mode that actually has decent AOE/dmg and a barrage that has a high scatter (as to not be good vs single MG/pak). And pak with a high scatter autofire but high dmg/AOE barrage (so it's good vs static, bad vs mobile).

Scott would also be made a 2 shot unit and target size reduced to 17 (currently it has 19 target size which I think is a bit too much; StugE which has more armour and HP and really is larger, has 17 target size).

So in the end you would have an autofire specialist Scott that could somewhat deal with blobs and a pak howi with a inaccurate autofire but deadly barrage. Scott would have lower target size but also 320 HP and a pak howi would also go back to being 5 man.

The Scott (a backline artillery unit that take three shots from the Panther to kill) needs smoke because a Jackson can't kill the Panther in three shots?

Does the Panzerwerfer, Katyusha, Stuka, etc need smoke and enough health to survive three shots from an opposing tank, just in case an enemy tank tries to dive it? We wouldn't want there to be any way for someone to kill a backline unit, after all, even if you leave it out of position.

Update your game, Scott isn't anymore a backline unit, it has standard range and only the barrage is set to 80.