Germans Anti tank capabilities.

Stugs are a good counter for T3 soviet units. I don't know why I don't see more ingame.

Stugs need more micro then PzIV.

Stugs need more micro then PzIV.

I think its rather more that PIV can be used in noth an aggressive and defensive role, wheres Stug can only really perform as long range support.

Thats why people more often opt for the PIV. For a little more cost, you get a much more versatile unit.

All the micro Stugs really need is forward/reverse, smoke and Vet ability.
Positioning is key, which I guess is sort of micro, but more about macro.

Its actually the PIV that needs more micro, speficially when used aggressively.
Circle strafing is more or less a full time attention hog, which is true for all turretted circlestrafers. One missed click and you strafe into a tree, and the gun you are avoiding finally gets a bead.

Thing is people have relied on the multi purpose tank, because they have been able to.

Meanwhile for a long time soviets were virtually forced to play with assault gun.


Now soviets have a couple strats with heavy tank use, Germans don't want to adapt propperly by using the dedicated tank killing units.

Sovs use and keep using su85 because it has a reliable gun, okay armor and health. The stug doesn't compare. You always end up losing your stug, hell even a IL plane will kill it. The stug is a joke and should be cheaper. Reduce by at least 20 fuel

MrJafooli: Plenty of people have been going T3 with Sov very successfully.

Infact probably many more than go T4. I dont agree with your conclusions at all.

And I dont appreciate the not so hidden "Ost players dont wnt to adapt" crap.
The same can be said in ewual measure of Sov players. So what?
Its not really any kind of argument on balance, its just hidden ad hominem.

Sovs use and keep using su85 because it has a reliable gun, okay armor and health. The stug doesn't compare. You always end up losing your stug, hell even a IL plane will kill it. The stug is a joke and should be cheaper. Reduce by at least 20 fuel

You shouldn't go Stug against Soviet T4. I think its purpose is to counter T-34 heavy strats or T3 in general or you can build one in addition to your other tanks and use it as a support. When vetted it can be a very powerful tool. Don't underestimate the stun.

Nullist, Im not getting into a troll war with you, seen as it seems to be your favorite past time.


I didnt say people dont do T3. I said ''for a long time'' most people went with T4, out of nescesity for decent AT. I myself never liked the SU85 even when it was OP, simply for micro reasons, Ive always played with T3 to be aggresive.

Of course most Soviets do T3 now the T34 is buffed nicely.


Im not attacking German players (rofl), just saying there are currently undersued units which will fill a roll of German AT quite well, particularly in this situation of T34/85 spam.


So that is relevant to this balance discussion.


I will reword my final comment, if it offends you less:


Now soviets have a couple strats with heavy tank use, Germans have not yet adapted their builds propperly by using the dedicated tank killing units.

Nullist, Im not getting into a troll war with you, seen as it seems to be your favorite past time.


I didnt say people dont do T3. I said ''for a long time'' most people went with T4, out of nescesity for decent AT. I myself never liked the SU85 even when it was OP, simply for micro reasons, Ive always played with T3 to be aggresive.

Of course most Soviets do T3 now the T34 is buffed nicely.


Im not attacking German players (rofl), just saying there are currently undersued units which will fill a roll of German AT quite well, particularly in this situation of T34/85 spam.


So that is relevant to this balance discussion.


I will reword my final comment, if it offends you less:


Now soviets have a couple strats with heavy tank use, Germans have not yet adapted their builds propperly by using the dedicated tank killing units.

In my book the only dedicated tank killers for the Ostheer are, Tigers, Panthers and the Elefant.

why do you build a stug? to counter tanks. Why do you build a pak? To counter tanks.

With those units you will be able to save even faster for a Tiger, which will complement them very nicely.

Now soviets have a couple strats with heavy tank use, Germans have not yet adapted their builds propperly by using the dedicated tank killing units.

I dont buy these "havent adapted" arguments.

As I already stated, the general level of failure to adapt is mutual to players of most factions. But quite strongly negated when you consider players who play both factions.

Adaptation only goes so far until the hardcoded stats of the game become an obstacle, and things become highly situational, rather than the norm.

The "long time" period you refer to, was when SU85 was OP.
I dont find that a valid comparison for balance (because it was inherently imbalanced), nor relevant. That was "then", this is now. We cant balance the game on what it was 6 months ago. We need to balance it on what it is now.

Yes, its true that SU85s used to rule the field. So what. That was then. And it was wrong.

Stugs really are underperforming for cost. The Vet ability is indeed good, but you have to get their first, and that is reliant on the standard performance and cost of the unit, which compared to PIVs performance and cost, is sub-par.

Personally, as Ive suggested before, I think Stug should have a limited Barrage ability, similar but lesser than ZiS/Su-76. Ost generally lacks indirect fire options anyways.

It would help incentives Stugs as backline armored support, without unduly increasing their AT efficacy, and at the same time flatten the indirect fire disparity.

I think stugIIIs are fine as an alternative to PIVs when the soviets get T34/76s, T34/85s, KV-1s, KV-8s or IS-2s. You should never build them against SU85s or ISU-152s because they will lose in a slug fest.

When using the stugIII, always screen it with infantry to abuse the longer range against the soviet tanks. If the opponent moves towards you, back up using the reverse move and disable the enemy tank with a panzerfaust for an easy kill. It's basically the same thing soviets do with their SU-85s.

I love Stugs and I rarely build them for two reasons:

1) For a small price increase I can get a unit with far high survivability and only slightly less AT

2) Stugs are very vulnerable to flanking and their low health means even a single unit that flanks them dooms them. At their cost it is too risky.

I would love to be able to rely on Stugs again, and for a short time I did. The increase in their target size and buffs to AT guns makes them very risky for me right now. If I lose it I cannot possibly hope to stop the now superior in number T34's coming, but it only takes one at gun hit to put it in a terrible place and AT nades always penetrate from the front. As soon as the number of T34's is +1 to the number of Stugs, I have a hard time using it without blobbing all my units to protect it.

In addition, it has low AI abilities and means instead of supporting infantry it needs them to babysit while it looks for tanks. The stun is good but is glitchy (sometime impacting terrain, sometimes not firing correctly) and requires the Stug not to move. They are also completely useless in team games where a single SU85 can destroy them in 2-3 hits. Annoying late game they are very inconsistent against heavy tanks because they can get randomly stunned and then they are dead because of their low health.

Stugs were great in the Beta, and deserve to be useful again. Either deep cuts in the price, or buff the stats. It can either be buffed to deal with tanks more effectively or have better health and armor to stay closer to infantry.

I'm using stugs in combination with troop training (pls no stoning) and defensively.

Efficiently weapon on veteran.

Nulist, you don't have to buy anything, cos I ain't selling it.

I'm telling you.

Building a P4 is the wrong move when 34/85s are designed to hard counter them. Either teck to panthers, but that's harder and your still going to get mark targeted, which is all why you are better off with stugs protected by screen of paks and grens. They will not reach your stugs then, as Areohawk said. Then save for tiger if you want and use existing AT to protect that also, push them off map.

Nulist, you don't have to buy anything, cos I ain't selling it.

I'm telling you.

Building a P4 is the wrong move when 34/85s are designed to hard counter them. Either teck to panthers, but that's harder and your still going to get mark targeted, which is all why you are better off with stugs protected by screen of paks and grens. They will not reach your stugs then, as Areohawk said. Then save for tiger if you want and use existing AT to protect that also, push them off map.

Usually I see StuGs as a counter to a fast soviet T3, and later on they do a fine job as support for more survivable tanks like PzIV or Tigers.

Just played a game where my opponent countered my T34/85s perfectly, using 2 paks and a stug initially (+faust).

I played ok, but the pressure the stug put on my 85s caused some terrible pathing from one which cost me it, still he did well with it.

Then later on, an aditional P4, and Pak43, made no way back in the game for me.

Very well played by my opponent, and perfectly demonstrates what Ive been saying about paks and stugs as a counter.

Heres the replay:

http://www.coh2.org/replays/11897/perfect-counter-to-t3485-spam.

Two T34/85s have no problem dealing with a Panther in 1v1.

And thats not even considering the teching cost differential.

If your T34/85s went down to PaKs, you arent using enough infantry support, nor should you, obviously, be approaching the frontally.

Ill watch the replay and give what feedback I can in a bit.

I didnt go down to paks, the 1st tank took one or two hits from the 1st pak on the field, reversed off, it got fausted by a Gren, and then the stug hunted it (protected by a pak).

My other 85 came in with mark target to take down the stug and flamer engies to deal with the pak.

He microed the stug quite well, and my 85 totally fucked up behaving erratically, like they do when theres stuff in their way.

So he outplayed me, and I was also a little unlucky.


But that does not change that he did the perfect build to counter my strat. Most other people get rolled by it and moan.

P4 takes much longer to get the fuel for, and has less raw AT power, so it does not stand a chance against mark target and 2 85s.


Where as a stug (played well), can dish out more raw AT, at long range, and be backed up by paks (to prevent circle strafe). Its perfect. You want to keep the 85s at arms length, and thats exactly what this combo of units does.


Then pak43.. you have no arty.. you could call a 120mm mortar, but this is expensive, and playing into the Germans hands by slowing down your fast assault... he wants a defensive game in this situation.


One major flaw, was that I couldnt afford AT nades, which hurt me. Im thinking of going down to 1 penal, and more cons to help with that. But its a shame, because I do like the DPS of penals vs Grens.

Here is another game, this time paks and Tigers were easily able to reppel the 34/85s after I had him pushed right back to base, decent comeback.

http://www.coh2.org/replays/11904/paks-tigers-own-t3485s.

Im thinking I will do T4 from now on with this for extra AT against tigers, and Katuskas against infantry. Should hopefully work out better.

MrJafooli: Plenty of people have been going T3 with Sov very successfully.

Infact probably many more than go T4. I dont agree with your conclusions at all.

And I dont appreciate the not so hidden "Ost players dont wnt to adapt" crap.
The same can be said in ewual measure of Sov players. So what?
Its not really any kind of argument on balance, its just hidden ad hominem.

Go home Smokaz, you're drunk. Hicks would smack you upside the head for saying that