WTF is wrong with M8A1?

This thing wipe out squad faster than Tiger Ace and yet able to kill Puma one on one, StuG E with turret and speed of a M20, Faghound 2.0 hur?

inb4 weird people: mod invised opening post that I and others were addressing. Following discussion is a replay to what was invis'd.



If scott killed your puma, you probably deserve to loose it that way.

Short answer: nothing.

Scott shouldn't be able to kill Puma 1v1 unless Puma is very badly microed. This doesn't mean that the Scott is defenseless though. You shouldn't assume Puma will win in any circumstance.

Can you elaborate on what the problem is with the match-up between the Puma and the Scott?

and yet able to kill Puma one on one

Puma takes 3 hits to kill M8A1, ~4.1s per shot, can ground target
M8A1 takes 4 hits to kill puma, ~5.8s per shot, can't ground target properly due to constant use of inaccurate and slow indirect fire when force firing, has min firing range of 10 so you can just bumrush straight into it.

If you lose your puma to M8A1, you are just bad.

If scott killed your puma, you probably deserve to loose it that way.

Thanks for being CIS CoH 2. He killed my Puma with his M8A1 on Kharkov (a nice long shot hitting a retreating Puma), and it was already a lost battle.

Puma takes 3 hits to kill M8A1, ~4.1s per shot, can ground target
M8A1 takes 4 hits to kill puma, ~5.8s per shot, can't ground target properly due to constant use of inaccurate and slow indirect fire when force firing, has min firing range of 10 so you can just bumrush straight into it.

If you lose your puma to M8A1, you are just bad.

No, and that means you can't pursue the M8A1 with Puma.

Something is wrong with a dedicated anti-infantry light armour able to fight a dedicated anti-armour heavy AC.

I think it would do the US faction good if they toned down the 'one-shottiness' of the direct fire while buffing barrage fire for the Scott. USF already has the HE sherman for squadwiping, but it feels like other than the pack howitzer, which doesn't last long against stukas, they don't have much indirect damage dealers that can crack MGs and Paks in the lategame.

I think it would do the US faction good if they toned down the 'one-shottiness' of the direct fire while buffing barrage fire for the Scott. USF already has the HE sherman for squadwiping, but it feels like other than the pack howitzer, which doesn't last long against stukas, they don't have much indirect damage dealers that can crack MGs and Paks in the lategame.

I just have that thing one shot my full health vet 2 Ober, and the second shell one shot a screck Volks.

Something is wrong with a dedicated anti-infantry light armour able to fight a dedicated anti-armour heavy AC.

Something is wrong with an armored car having more durability than any light tank except for the Luchs. Something is wrong with a puny little 50mm gun on an armored car constantly penetrating frontal armor of medium and heavy tanks. Something is wrong with a dedicated anti-armour armored car honestly being quite good against infantry.

The Scott can only "fight" the puma if you are either playing absolutely horribly against it, or the Scott has other AT as support.

It might be nice to get a huge buff to the indirect fire in exchange for the direct fire getting nerfed because as said the US severely lacks in indirect fire options, but at the same time I do mean this buff would have to be huge, right now the indirect fire feature is a hindrance on the unit, not something that is actually adding any worth to it.

Something is wrong with an armored car having more durability than any light tank except for the Luchs. Something is wrong with a puny little 50mm gun on an armored car constantly penetrating frontal armor of medium and heavy tanks. Something is wrong with a dedicated anti-armour armored car honestly being quite good against infantry.

The Scott can only "fight" the puma if you are either playing absolutely horribly against it, or the Scott has other AT as support.

It might be nice to get a huge buff to the indirect fire in exchange for the direct fire getting nerfed because as said the US severely lacks in indirect fire options, but at the same time I do mean this buff would have to be huge, right now the indirect fire feature is a hindrance on the unit, not something that is actually adding any worth to it.

Cruzz you know two M8A1 appear in front of the Puma, and it is dead in three sec?
so that thing raping all infantry, Pak and so on is not enough?

Cruzz you know two M8A1 appear in front of the Puma, and it is dead in three sec?
so that thing raping all infantry, Pak and so on is not enough?

Why do you only have a single puma with no other AT while opponent has two M8A1s? And no it won't be dead in three secs because the firing takes longer than that. And you could just smoke and watch as the Scotts fail to do anything.

They have the exact same range as PaKs, if your PaKs are getting raped by them I suggest you try facing them in the right direction.

Cruzz you know two M8A1 appear in front of the Puma, and it is dead in three sec?
so that thing raping all infantry, Pak and so on is not enough?

Replay of this happening please Porygon because it takes more than 2 M8A1 shots to kill a Puma and they have a rate of fire around once every 5 seconds so please, provide proof. Otherwise you could just be making things up and they're seems to be a lot of ''anecdotal evidence'' floating around these forums.

Why do you only have a single puma with no other AT while opponent has two M8A1s? And no it won't be dead in three secs because the firing takes longer than that. And you could just smoke and watch as the Scotts fail to do anything.

They have the exact same range as PaKs, if your PaKs are getting raped by them I suggest you try facing them in the right direction.

They can shoot like PIAT

The Puma's chief weakness (among many strengths as Cruzz noted) is 25 frontal armor. The M8A1 has 40 penetration. The best counters to the M8A1 are hunters with actual armor.

That being said the Puma is exceptionally good at killing M8A1s due to its crazy DPS and smoke. M8A1's have a fairly long aim time (1.25 seconds vs 0.25 for Puma) so smoke forces them to "re-aim". In a fair fight the M8A1 loses to the Puma every time.

If you want to zone an M8A1 then you should get a Jagdpanzer IV: Same range as the M8A1, high armor means it's almost never in danger from the M8A1, and high damage output means only two-shots are needed to kill it. There's really no reason you can't afford one by the time M8A1s show up.

The Panther is the best M8A1 hunter but the lower tech units work fine.

Out of curiosity did this sudden rage come up from our game earlier? You guys were pretty handily on the back foot before any M8A1s arrived.

The Puma's chief weakness (among many strengths as Cruzz noted) is 25 frontal armor. The M8A1 has 40 penetration. The best counters to the M8A1 are hunters with actual armor.

That being said the Puma is exceptionally good at killing M8A1s due to its crazy DPS and smoke. M8A1's have a fairly long aim time (1.25 seconds vs 0.25 for Puma) so smoke forces them to "re-aim". In a fair fight the M8A1 loses to the Puma every time.

If you want to zone an M8A1 then you should get a Jagdpanzer IV: Same range as the M8A1, high armor means it's almost never in danger from the M8A1, and high damage output means only two-shots are needed to kill it. There's really no reason you can't afford one by the time M8A1s show up.

The Panther is the best M8A1 hunter but the lower tech units work fine.

Out of curiosity did this sudden rage come up from our game earlier? You guys were pretty handily on the back foot before any M8A1s arrived.

You realised your M8A1 wipe out my whole army, didn't you?

You realised your M8A1 wipe out my whole army, didn't you?

Either of you guys keep the replay? I would like to watch it and judge for myself.

Very well. Let's look at the replay in detail.

•  
  

  0

  VS

  Corp.Shephard Sepah

  Siu-King** Porygon

  Airborne Company Adaptation of "Knowing is Half the Battle"

  by: Corp.Shephard map: Rzhev Winter

  1

  -

I'd estimate you guys held a fuel point for ~1 out of the first ten minutes of the game You lost a lot of strategic points when you successfully double teamed Sepah. The result is that I realized you were going to be very fuel starved and went for a strong early game into M8A1s which generally tear "catch up" units like Pak40 and Obersoldaten apart.

Around ten minutes in your team starts to consolidate map control that it lost in the early game. This regained momentum is largely wasted when your PZII 'Luchs' wanders into the fog of war which contains 5 bazookas it dies. This puts even more pressure on a tenuous fuel situation. You keep picking really stupid battles like charging M8A1s through ice and heavy snow with all-infantry forces. That's why I chose the M8A1: The map's campy and I know you don't have the fuel to deal with it cost-efficiently.

Finally you pick up a Puma at 17 minutes into the game against three M8A1s. It bravely suicides into Sepah's poorly guarded M8A1 and actually kills it straight up despite having no support. Naturally it doesn't escape against two additional M8A1s, a 57mm and a dual bazooka squad.

Had you not missed a shot with the Puma and used your smoke before you took engine damage you probably would have gotten a kill without losing anything.

In truth I could have done the same with Shermans given our advantage but it's Winter Rzhev so why would I risk using a unit that has to go on the ice or over easily mined locations on that map?

I'll be frank I wonder about the M8A1's strength as well. Blaming your loss on the M8A1 though in this case seems silly. The fact that I had a Major out at ~8 minutes was more indicative of the problem.

Very well. Let's look at the replay in detail.

•  
  

  0

  VS

  Corp.Shephard Sepah

  Siu-King** Porygon

  Airborne Company Adaptation of "Knowing is Half the Battle"

  by: Corp.Shephard map: Rzhev Winter

  1

  -

I'd estimate you guys held a fuel point for ~1 out of the first ten minutes of the game You lost a lot of strategic points when you successfully double teamed Sepah. The result is that I realized you were going to be very fuel starved and went for a strong early game into M8A1s which generally tear "catch up" units like Pak40 and Obersoldaten apart.

Around ten minutes in your team starts to consolidate map control that it lost in the early game. This regained momentum is largely wasted when your PZII 'Luchs' wanders into the fog of war which contains 5 bazookas it dies. This puts even more pressure on a tenuous fuel situation. You keep picking really stupid battles like charging M8A1s through ice and heavy snow with all-infantry forces. That's why I chose the M8A1: The map's campy and I know you don't have the fuel to deal with it cost-efficiently.

Finally you pick up a Puma at 17 minutes into the game against three M8A1s. It bravely suicides into Sepah's poorly guarded M8A1 and actually kills it straight up despite having no support. Naturally it doesn't escape against two additional M8A1s, a 57mm and a dual bazooka squad.

Had you not missed a shot with the Puma and used your smoke before you took engine damage you probably would have gotten a kill without losing anything.

In truth I could have done the same with Shermans given our advantage but it's Winter Rzhev so why would I risk using a unit that has to go on the ice or over easily mined locations on that map?

I'll be frank I wonder about the M8A1's strength as well. Blaming your loss on the M8A1 though in this case seems silly. The fact that I had a Major out at ~8 minutes was more indicative of the problem.

Thanks watching it now, will edit this post with my analysis and some game stats.

Mods doing their job before this turns into a flame fest.
There's nothing wrong with that.