Login

russian armor

Why Stuart is sh*t compared to T70

18 Mar 2022, 09:33 AM
#41
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 658

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Mar 2022, 20:54 PMVipper

Why does the luch need veterancy to less get vision than a M3A3 at vet 0?




Default Sight = 35 Range


Sight Options Available to USF:

M20 = 50 Range

Stuart = 45 Range @Vet 1

Pathfinder = 50 Range

Major = 50 Range @Vet1 Also has Call in Scout Plane


Sight Options Available to OKW:

Kubelwagon = 50 Range + Minimap MapHack Ability

Volgrenadiers = 45 Range @Vet4

Jaeger Light Infantry = 50

Sturm Officer = 50

Panzerfüsilier = 35 but has Flares

SdKfz 221 Scout Car = 50 Range

Panzer II "Luchs" Light Tank = 35 Range, 45 Range @Vet3

Puma = 50 Range

Panzer IV = 35 Range, 42 Range @Vet 5, +10 Sight Range with Panzer Commander Upgrade

Panther = 35 Range, 42 Range @Vet 5, +10 Sight Range With Panzer Commander Upgrade

Flammpanzer 38 Hetzer = 50 Range @Vet 5

Sturmtiger = 45 Range @Vet 4

Command Panther = 50 Range, Aura provides +15 Vision Range to all Vehicles

King Tiger = 35 Range Default, 50 Range @Vet 1 with Spearhead Ability, +10 Sight Range with Panzer Commander Upgrade and stacks with Spearhead for a Total of +60 Vision




So to answer your question Vipper, it is because Luch's does not need the extra vision and it is only there to make use of the Vet 4 bonus which gives +5 Attack Range. Having a vehicle with 40 Attack Range and only 35 Vision would make the Vet 4 bonus useless.


18 Mar 2022, 15:10 PM
#43
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 658

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Mar 2022, 12:10 PMVipper

Are you deliberately leaving out vehicles/abilities with extra sight of USF like:


Unlike OKW, USF does not have the same luxury/freedom of commander choice since OKW has all of the tools available to it within its faction even coming with one of the best heavy tanks in game non doctrinal.

It is way more common to see any of the OKW items I listed vs Easy 8 or Rifleman Flares which no one uses because USF is forced to used 2-3 commanders to fill its missing toolkit.


Sure it would be nice if Luch's had extra vision but it does not need it due to literally a vast choice of viable vision options including Stock Infantry that has extra sight. There is a reason why you see Pathfinders in most matches because no one good is going to use their AT gun to scout like you will and risk giving the enemy a free AT gun.
18 Mar 2022, 15:58 PM
#44
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Unlike OKW, USF does not have the same luxury/freedom of commander choice since OKW has all of the tools available to it within its faction even coming with one of the best heavy tanks in game non doctrinal.

It is way more common to see any of the OKW items I listed vs Easy 8 or Rifleman Flares which no one uses because USF is forced to used 2-3 commanders to fill its missing toolkit.

Yet stats say a different story:
https://coh2stats.com/stats?range=range&statsSource=top200&type=1v1&race=usf&fromTimeStamp=1631145600&toTimeStamp=1647561600

In the last patch Rifle company is the second favorable in load outs ....

And that does not really answer my question. You provided a list that included all OKW extra sight units including unicorns/unit unsuitable for reckon, like a Vet 5 hezter/ Vet 4 Sturmtiger, yet when it come to USF you left out half the roaster.

Now that either happened by accident or you did deliberately and that nothing to do with to OKW commanders. Since you provided such a list it should be complete.


Sure it would be nice if Luch's had extra vision but it does not need it due to literally a vast choice of viable vision options including Stock Infantry that has extra sight. There is a reason why you see Pathfinders in most matches because no one good is going to use their AT gun to scout like you will and risk giving the enemy a free AT gun.

Pathfinders have nothing to do with Stuart vision.

If one want a vehicle with vision one can get an M20.

In addition USF have the major which is an excellent scout yet they still use Pathfinders simply because the unit is OP and available in very good commander.
18 Mar 2022, 17:24 PM
#45
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 682



Unlike OKW, USF does not have the same luxury/freedom of commander choice since OKW has all of the tools available to it within its faction even coming with one of the best heavy tanks in game non doctrinal.

It is way more common to see any of the OKW items I listed vs Easy 8 or Rifleman Flares which no one uses because USF is forced to used 2-3 commanders to fill its missing toolkit.


Sure it would be nice if Luch's had extra vision but it does not need it due to literally a vast choice of viable vision options including Stock Infantry that has extra sight. There is a reason why you see Pathfinders in most matches because no one good is going to use their AT gun to scout like you will and risk giving the enemy a free AT gun.


Your list does seem a little disingenuous, no offense
18 Mar 2022, 18:05 PM
#46
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 1289

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Mar 2022, 21:46 PMVipper

Kurobane asked a question and I replied with a similar question.

Now you have asked and I had to reply.


Stuart get first sight bonus at vet1 luch at vet 3.
Do you really want to argue that is easier to get luch vet 3 than Stuart Vet 1?


Here we go, adding trivial things to prove a point.
Vision is not the main issue here. But ill humor you. The luch will vet easier but
to vet isent as hard as vet 1. Okw (axis in general) has more vision or scouting and cloak options so the fact that the luchs gets it at vet 3 is a non issue.

The stuart remains to weak for its cost and timing regardles of its vet 1 vision bonus. Its a 70 fuel pea shooter that can slow or snare vehicles. Other vehicles for that price and timing have far greater impact.
Cost and mirco required is to high for its impact. Do you really think this is balanced?
18 Mar 2022, 18:45 PM
#47
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Here we go, adding trivial things to prove a point.
Vision is not the main issue here. But ill humor you. The luch will vet easier but
to vet isent as hard as vet 1.

I am sorry but I couldn't follow. Is vet 3 luch easier to achieve than Stuart vet1?


Okw (axis in general) has more vision or scouting and cloak options so the fact that the luchs gets it at vet 3 is a non issue.

USF have a little trouble scouting.

They have the major with 50 vision and reckon planes, as stock something Axis faction do not get. It even "free" as some would say since it comes with teching.

They also get Pathfinders (I&R Pathfinder) one of the best scouting unit at CP0 in one of the most common commander.


The stuart remains to weak for its cost and timing regardles of its vet 1 vision bonus. Its a 70 fuel pea shooter that can slow or snare vehicles. Other vehicles for that price and timing have far greater impact.
Cost and mirco required is to high for its impact. Do you really think this is balanced?

Yet top player use it all the time...
19 Mar 2022, 08:13 AM
#48
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 1289

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Mar 2022, 18:45 PMVipper

I am sorry but I couldn't follow. Is vet 3 luch easier to achieve than Stuart vet1?

that was unclear yes. I meant to say the luch vets easier because of reliable damage output but reaching vet 3 as fast as the stuart reaches vet 1 isent the case. Its still a minor trivial detail in the whole issue

USF have a little trouble scouting.

They have the major with 50 vision and reckon planes, as stock something Axis faction do not get. It even "free" as some would say since it comes with teching.

They also get Pathfinders (I&R Pathfinder) one of the best scouting unit at CP0 in one of the most common commander.

indeed, okw and also ost just has more of it and more readely available, and even stronger options in doctrines

Yet top player use it all the time...

how does this answer my question? How do the high cost for preformance and high mirco reqirements for low/situational impact make this unit balanced?
That the best of the best use a unit that no else does doesnt mean a the unit is balanced.





19 Mar 2022, 09:14 AM
#49
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


that was unclear yes. I meant to say the luch vets easier because of reliable damage output but reaching vet 3 as fast as the stuart reaches vet 1 isent the case. Its still a minor trivial detail in the whole issue

Glad that see that acknowledge that your original argument that "luch also a more usefull scout unit then the stuart." does really hold much water.


indeed, okw and also ost just has more of it and more readely available, and even stronger options in doctrines

What do you mean by "readely available"?

What is "stronger" than pathfinders when it comes to scouting?



how does this answer my question? How do the high cost for preformance and high mirco reqirements for low/situational impact make this unit balanced?
That the best of the best use a unit that no else does doesnt mean a the unit is balanced.

Why do you claim that "no one else use it" do you have anything to back the claim?
19 Mar 2022, 18:01 PM
#50
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 1289

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Mar 2022, 09:14 AMVipper

Glad that see that acknowledge that your original argument that "luch also a more usefull scout unit then the stuart." does really hold much water.

you able to read? I didnt say that. But interpit it as you will. Cloaking helps scouting a lot and the stuart cant. And unless the luchs lost cloak the luch is a better scout.

What do you mean by "readely available"?

What is "stronger" than pathfinders when it comes to scouting?

spotting scopes, the 222, jeagers, map hack vet abilities on certain units.
You know full well what readely available means.
Just answer the questions that doesnt allign with your views for once. It would be good for a change


Why do you claim that "no one else use it" do you have anything to back the claim?


You claimed "yet the top players use it to try and prove its a well balanced unit" you go provide proof its a unit everybody uses it beyond the pro's.
The proof that it is balanced you failed to show because you wont answer when asked, just insert minute details that barely touch the core of the issue or questions asked to dedlect or dodge the questions.


If you dont answer with a real answer, then your view doesnt hold much or any water. And then i am done.
19 Mar 2022, 18:16 PM
#51
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


you able to read? I didnt say that. But interpit it as you will. Cloaking helps scouting a lot and the stuart cant. And unless the luchs lost cloak the luch is a better scout.

50% moving penatly and 35 sight does not make a better scout than 44 sight no penalties.

Luch is simply not a better scout.


spotting scopes, the 222, jeagers, map hack vet abilities on certain units.
You know full well what readely available means.
Just answer the questions that doesnt allign with your views for once. It would be good for a change

Jager are not stronger scouts than Pathfinders.

Regardless the argument was that USF lack scouting option so they need Stuart to be a good scout. Think we have established that they do not lack scouting options.

Even if you want to argue that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, that does change the fact that USF have adequate scouting options.




You claimed "yet the top players use it to try and prove its a well balanced unit" you go provide proof its a unit everybody uses it beyond the pro's.
The proof that it is balanced you failed to show because you wont answer when asked, just insert minute details that barely touch the core of the issue or questions asked to dedlect or dodge the questions.


If you dont answer with a real answer, then your view doesnt hold much or any water. And then i am done.

There are no core problem with Stuart and the unit is in good place.
20 Mar 2022, 08:07 AM
#52
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 1289

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Mar 2022, 18:16 PMVipper

50% moving penatly and 35 sight does not make a better scout than 44 sight no penalties.

Luch is simply not a better scout.

this is what you get for dodging questions. I said scouting is a minor/trivial part of the issue. Yet you keep mentioning this, i did bite and here we are.
being able to creep forward and get more then standard sight with vet is plenty usefull. This makes ambushing it harder (with other cloaked units) harder.
Its only requires a bit more input. Shame you cant see that. We have to disagree here, and i will leave it at that


Jager are not stronger scouts than Pathfinders. i mixed them up with falls. Jagers still get very good sight adding to what i said earlier about more numerous of options for axis

Regardless the argument was that USF lack scouting option so they need Stuart to be a good scout. Think we have established that they do not lack scouting options.

Even if you want to argue that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, that does change the fact that USF have adequate scouting options.

how does one side having more scout options translate into one side not having enough? I never said usf was lacking there just that axis in general have more options.

There are no core problem with Stuart and the unit is in good place.

it being a situational unit with a 2 stage ability as its main relevant factor doesnt put it in a good place. The t70 costs the same yet is far easier to use and has more impact. And dont go on about t70 being op bye design, i know your view on that


20 Mar 2022, 10:09 AM
#53
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


this is what you get for dodging questions. I said scouting is a minor/trivial part of the issue. Yet you keep mentioning this, i did bite and here we are.
being able to creep forward and get more then standard sight with vet is plenty usefull. This makes ambushing it harder (with other cloaked units) harder.
Its only requires a bit more input. Shame you cant see that. We have to disagree here, and i will leave it at that

Since the Moderators do not like where this debate is going I close it by simply saying that if in your opinion the scouting capability of the Stuart is trivial issue, you should point that to Kurobane who bought up the issue and use it an to support his claim that Stuart is UP instead of trying to prove to me that Luch is a better scout that Stuart.


i mixed them up with falls. Jagers still get very good sight adding to what i said earlier about more numerous of options for axis


how does one side having more scout options translate into one side not having enough? I never said usf was lacking there just that axis in general have more options.

Again if in your opinion USF have sufficient scouting option you should be pointing that out to Kurobane according to whom USF need Stuart as scout because they are lacking scouting option, instead of trying to argue with me that axis have stronger scouting options.


it being a situational unit with a 2 stage ability as its main relevant factor doesnt put it in a good place. The t70 costs the same yet is far easier to use and has more impact. And dont go on about t70 being op bye design, i know your view on that

Finally if in your opinion Stuart is UP and sees little action I suggest you debate the issue with other people who point out the exact opposite from the first pages of this thread.
(check post #15 for instance)

As for the performance of T-70 it is not simply "my" view but it is a commonly accepted view, T-70 is considered power spike in the Soviet faction.
21 Mar 2022, 00:48 AM
#54
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 658

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Mar 2022, 10:09 AMVipper



Again if in your opinion USF have sufficient scouting option you should be pointing that out to Kurobane according to whom USF need Stuart as scout because they are lacking scouting option, instead of trying to argue with me that axis have stronger scouting options.




The point I was trying to make is that the Stuart lacks a role in COH 2.

The M5 Stuart was the Army’s standard light tank at the beginning of World War II.

It was primarily used in reconnaissance, flank security, and infantry support roles. The M5 was lightly armored, quick and maneuverable, with a top speed of 36 miles per hour.

The M5 Stuart was also used to clear hedgerows.




Yet I don't see the Stuart in game with Heavy Crush, (which would be interesting on some maps to open pathways for Rifleman) nor is it very good at reconnaissance the one thing it should be good with.
At the very least a Recon Mode like the T-70 would suffice and fit with how the M5 Stuart was actually used.

So if the Stuart is not good at reconnaissance, not good at killing things (M20 kills twice as fast with a fraction of the fuel cost while also giving much needed mines) then that means that the Stuart is a waste of fuel at any stage of the game as its abilities are also garbage.

In overall faction design, the AEC would fit USF much better than for the Brits, which would benefit more from having the Stuart.





21 Mar 2022, 09:05 AM
#55
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


The point I was trying to make is that the Stuart lacks a role in COH 2.

No it does not. It might not be a role you like bat the fact that it has 2 anti vehicle abilities should tell you something.


The M5 Stuart was the Army’s standard light tank at the beginning of World War II.

It was primarily used in reconnaissance, flank security, and infantry support roles. The M5 was lightly armored, quick and maneuverable, with a top speed of 36 miles per hour.

The M5 Stuart was also used to clear hedgerows.



Yet I don't see the Stuart in game with Heavy Crush, (which would be interesting on some maps to open pathways for Rifleman) nor is it very good at reconnaissance the one thing it should be good with.

Heavy crush on light is a weird idea and probable a bad idea since the game needs less means of manipulating map features than more.

Stuart that where used to to clear hedgerows where equipped with home made blades something you do not see either.


At the very least a Recon Mode like the T-70 would suffice and fit with how the M5 Stuart was actually used.

That is a different suggestion from you original of starting with 50 sight. The problem with a light tank with early large sight radius is that it very difficult to counter since it would be able to detect early enemy ATG/AT infatry and avoid them.

Just because T-70 has reckon mode does not necessarily mean that giving a similar ability to T-70 would be a good idea. Firstly because Stuart already has 2 abilities which it should then lose to be on parallel with T-70 in abilities and secondly because T-70 support conscripts and not riflemen.

In the end of they day if Stuart take the role of pure reconnaissance vehicles it would overlap even more with M20 and Greyhound and one would have to find new role for those.



So if the Stuart is not good at reconnaissance, not good at killing things (M20 kills twice as fast with a fraction of the fuel cost while also giving much needed mines) then that means that the Stuart is a waste of fuel at any stage of the game as its abilities are also garbage.

Stuart is good at reconnaissance one vetted and that makes, a Stuart that survives, useful at later stages of the game.

Stuart has less AI than m20 but much better AT, M20 will lose to 222 Stuart will not.

If Stuart was a waste of fuel it would not see any action yet it see lots of action.

"Shell Shock" and "Point Blank Engine Shot" are not garbage.


In overall faction design, the AEC would fit USF much better than for the Brits, which would benefit more from having the Stuart.

This another rather weird idea. I have to point out that UKF seem to need the snaring ability of the AEC since they to not have snares on their mainline infatry.
21 Mar 2022, 13:00 PM
#56
avatar of BasedSecretary

Posts: 1197




The point I was trying to make is that the Stuart lacks a role in COH 2.

The M5 Stuart was the Army’s standard light tank at the beginning of World War II.

It was primarily used in reconnaissance, flank security, and infantry support roles. The M5 was lightly armored, quick and maneuverable, with a top speed of 36 miles per hour.

The M5 Stuart was also used to clear hedgerows.




Yet I don't see the Stuart in game with Heavy Crush, (which would be interesting on some maps to open pathways for Rifleman) nor is it very good at reconnaissance the one thing it should be good with.
At the very least a Recon Mode like the T-70 would suffice and fit with how the M5 Stuart was actually used.

So if the Stuart is not good at reconnaissance, not good at killing things (M20 kills twice as fast with a fraction of the fuel cost while also giving much needed mines) then that means that the Stuart is a waste of fuel at any stage of the game as its abilities are also garbage.

In overall faction design, the AEC would fit USF much better than for the Brits, which would benefit more from having the Stuart.







Unironically decent suggestion.
21 Mar 2022, 13:10 PM
#57
avatar of BasedSecretary

Posts: 1197

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Mar 2022, 09:05 AMVipper

Heavy crush on light is a weird idea and probable a bad idea since the game needs less means of manipulating map features than more.


In a game where every mainline can paint the map with green cover, you bet your ass we need more ways to manipulate the map and not less.
MMX
21 Mar 2022, 14:35 PM
#58
avatar of MMX

Posts: 999 | Subs: 1



So if the Stuart is not good at reconnaissance, not good at killing things (M20 kills twice as fast with a fraction of the fuel cost while also giving much needed mines) then that means that the Stuart is a waste of fuel at any stage of the game as its abilities are also garbage.



While this keeps coming up every now and then, the M20, at least in its current iteration, is by no means better than the Stuart AI-wise. In any typical in-game scenario (engagement range of 25 m onward) quite the opposite it true.

Now I gotta admit I haven't specifically tested it, but as long as my DPS calc isn't too far off the Stuart should actually have about twice the anti-infantry DPS and KPS than the M20 even under the most unfavorable conditions (i.e. (1) absence of cover or RA bonuses for the target and (2) wide squad formation). Lower target size and/or clumping up behind cover would skew things even more in favor of the Stuart.

Granted the Luchs, T-70 or M-8 are absolutely in another league when it comes to fighting infantry, but the Stuart is far from useless in this role. Not to mention it is also very capable against any LV it can possibly face.
21 Mar 2022, 15:14 PM
#59
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



In a game where every mainline can paint the map with green cover, you bet your ass we need more ways to manipulate the map and not less.

Sandbag are not really related to this although I have pointed out several time that they should not be available to mainline infantry nor should they have a target size of 20.

Mapmaker go into lengths to design map a certain way and having an early unit flatten half the map by driving over them is not really helpful in antway.

But this debate is not really related to this thread and I you want to continue it I suggest you start another thread about it.
21 Mar 2022, 16:03 PM
#60
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Mar 2022, 14:35 PMMMX


While this keeps coming up every now and then, the M20, at least in its current iteration, is by no means better than the Stuart AI-wise. In any typical in-game scenario (engagement range of 25 m onward) quite the opposite it true.

Now I gotta admit I haven't specifically tested it, but as long as my DPS calc isn't too far off the Stuart should actually have about twice the anti-infantry DPS and KPS than the M20 even under the most unfavorable conditions (i.e. (1) absence of cover or RA bonuses for the target and (2) wide squad formation). Lower target size and/or clumping up behind cover would skew things even more in favor of the Stuart.

Granted the Luchs, T-70 or M-8 are absolutely in another league when it comes to fighting infantry, but the Stuart is far from useless in this role. Not to mention it is also very capable against any LV it can possibly face.


They're both equally bad, both serves as stop-bleed/supporting your rifle push while the UC, 222, WC51, AAHT etc... are real light vehicles able to harass/kill and force retreat accordingly to their respective prices and timing.
the m20 and stuart are overly used in 1vs1 because of timing and the stop-bleed, because AAHT is far too late and you need the early HMG anyway, you can't rely only on the AAHT to suppress your opponent's infantry.

But they are bad, the M20 can spend 20 seconds firing at a squad without damaging any model and is helpless vs cover and the Stuart is simply unreliable. One game you get it vet1 with 0 kill after 5 minutes of intensive micro, next game you get it kill 5 models in 5 shots in less than a minute.

==> They only shine at killing low life models. I guess once you know that that make them good enough to be used. But they both share the title of worst light vehicles in the game for what they're supposed to to.
Note that the heaviest nerf the M20 recieved in this last iteration of the game wasn't because of its anti infantry but because it was too hard to kill with a 222, you couldn't recklessly rush it...
5 users are browsing this thread: 5 guests

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

794 users are online: 1 member and 793 guests
jigspatels
1 post in the last 24h
16 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48926
Welcome our newest member, jigspatels
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM