StuG could need a buff. I wouldn´t even mind if the cost got increased for that.
Right now the 120mp, 35 fuel more are better spent for a turret, 2 free MGs and more health.
Su-85s make StuGs obsolete. A Panzer IV has chances though.
StuGs also hit the ground/obstacles pretty often since some patches ago.
All in all your money is better spent on a Panzer IV.
The biggest problem - and pretty much THE REASON I don´t go for StuGs - is the fact that it´s dead with three shots. This often means instantly. Increase its health and I might consider building StuGs.
Just bring us old Stug III!
11 Nov 2014, 17:12 PM
#21
Posts: 1217
11 Nov 2014, 17:32 PM
#22
Posts: 207
I am so F***ing offended by this biased piece of s*** pole!!!
Poll......................
11 Nov 2014, 17:34 PM
#23
Posts: 1130
People he is asking for a role change not for a buff. the stug is a fine generalist unit but has no place in the current ost meta.
horrida flamma bella
11 Nov 2014, 18:35 PM
#24
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
People he is asking for a role change not for a buff. the stug is a fine generalist unit but has no place in the current ost meta.
Because current meta is stall with T2 until tiger lolspam, which have nothing to do with stug, but cost effectiveness of tiger(and call-ins in general compared to stock units, to a lesser extend for axis, to definitely too big extend for soviets).
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
11 Nov 2014, 19:07 PM
#25
Posts: 1130
Because current meta is stall with T2 until tiger lolspam, which have nothing to do with stug, but cost effectiveness of tiger(and call-ins in general compared to stock units, to a lesser extend for axis, to definitely too big extend for soviets).
This is partially true. tigers are indeed the meta because of allied call in medium tanks completely roflstomp tier 3 tanks. alter the role of the stug and you see a lot less tigers. i would be very happy if they tied tank callins to teching trees
horrida flamma bella
11 Nov 2014, 19:18 PM
#26
1 Posts: 927
I dislike the current stug, has way too low armor and health. That its vet ability is whats makes it worth anything is a huge fail and a bs ability to begin with. Limit micro for your opponent is a nono.
11 Nov 2014, 19:33 PM
#27
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I dislike the current stug, has way too low armor and health. That its vet ability is whats makes it worth anything is a huge fail and a bs ability to begin with. Limit micro for your opponent is a nono.
It costs 80 fuel and is most durable vehicle in game for that price.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
11 Nov 2014, 20:01 PM
#28
Posts: 4928
It costs 80 fuel and is most durable vehicle in game for that price.
Actually 400 health is pretty standard for that price, which includes the StuG, M10, and Puma.
Anyway my problem with the StuG III is that once the Americans get M36 or E8's, or the Soviets get T-34/85's, the StuG III becomes totally obsolete. The M36 can kill it in just 2 hits, and the E8's and 85's are too durable for it to kill.
all you filthy hotchkiss lovers need to l2p #TeamPanzerIII
> Kriegsbeute Doctrine|Partisan Rework|British Infantry Rework|Soviet Assault Squad <
11 Nov 2014, 20:16 PM
#29
Posts: 1217
Ostheer doesn´t need a StuG that goes down within seconds. The current StuG can´t compete with anything atm. It has the survivability of a light tank and not even the mobility of a medium. It also lacks a turret and operates in a clumsy manner. It has to turn its hull more often than turreted tanks and thus gets stuck easier.
It costs 80 fuel and is most durable vehicle in game for that price.
Bad maneuverability + low health = Fuel better spent on a Panzer IV.
11 Nov 2014, 20:18 PM
#30
Posts: 655
Permanently BannedI'm waiting for Dane to post here 
A Fallen Scrub
11 Nov 2014, 20:25 PM
#31
Posts: 640
Yeah I don't understand why it got it's health reduced.
11 Nov 2014, 20:39 PM
#32
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Yeah I don't understand why it got it's health reduced.
There are only two weapons that make any difference in shots required to kill it.
Or it was reduced before WFA? Can't really remember, anyway the only weapons it makes any difference against is PTRS and bazooka. For every single other-its still 3 except ISU and KV-2.
@Mr. Someguy
There is also armor that adds to survivability you know, allied AT weapons doesn't all have 100% chance to penetrate it unlike axis AT against allied armor and as a cherry on top, it got most firepower out of all vehicles around its price.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
11 Nov 2014, 20:47 PM
#33
Posts: 2053
I foresee no increase in stug usage if it is changed. It will get blown up by everything anyways, and you might as well get a panzer IV.
Also, im not voting for a poll that treats anyone that disagrees as a dumbass.
Also, im not voting for a poll that treats anyone that disagrees as a dumbass.
11 Nov 2014, 20:56 PM
#34
Posts: 1024 | Subs: 1
If u want, administrator just can options in pool i think.
11 Nov 2014, 21:15 PM
#35
Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2
Hey great lets put the T34/76 and SU-85 in the same tier as well!
The views and opinions expressed in my posts and topics are solely those of the Napalm. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Relic, the developers, The Angry Bears and/or any/all contributors to this site.
11 Nov 2014, 21:30 PM
#36
Posts: 4928
There are only two weapons that make any difference in shots required to kill it.
Or it was reduced before WFA? Can't really remember, anyway the only weapons it makes any difference against is PTRS and bazooka. For every single other-its still 3 except ISU and KV-2.
The difference is that while it still takes 2 heavy hits or 3 normal hits to kill, any combination of the sort is more effective. The old StuG could take one heavy hit and one normal hit, or two normal hits and an AT grenade, etc. But these combinations are now lethal, and in it's current form one Sherman and one Jackson hitting a StuG will kill it instantly, whereas before the StuG would have a slim chance to escape if you reacted quickly.
There is also armor that adds to survivability you know, allied AT weapons doesn't all have 100% chance to penetrate it unlike axis AT against allied armor and as a cherry on top, it got most firepower out of all vehicles around its price.
It has 140 armour and lacks a turret. It's nothing impressive. I'd rather it cost 100 fuel and be more like the old StuG. As long as you're facing the American faction, there is no reason to get a StuG, it'd just be fodder for the M36.
all you filthy hotchkiss lovers need to l2p #TeamPanzerIII
> Kriegsbeute Doctrine|Partisan Rework|British Infantry Rework|Soviet Assault Squad <
11 Nov 2014, 21:49 PM
#37
Posts: 327
I'm all for an improved StuG. Currently you are much better off getting another Pak - almost as immobile, but lasts better and has much better penetration. StuGs would be much more useful if they were better in AT but worse (you could say almost useless) in AP.
At the very least, a buff to penetration -- with corresponding MP cost increase -- would be good.
At the very least, a buff to penetration -- with corresponding MP cost increase -- would be good.
12 Nov 2014, 01:42 AM
#38
Posts: 647
still good against t34s, could do with a slightly lower cost but thats about it. put the allies meta back to t3, suddenly stugs will be alot more popular.
12 Nov 2014, 02:31 AM
#39
Posts: 656
For the price I think the StuG III performs fairly well, it's just that P4s do almost everything better. Choosing between a StuG and a P4 is like choosing between a T70 and a T34. The tank has an identity crisis in that it tries to be an all purpose assault gun in a tier that already contains a better all purpose medium tank.
I personally liked the old StuG III that acted like a specialized TD. It had a clearly defined role. The only problem was that the limited range and presence of SU-85s around the time it arrived pretty much limited it's effectiveness. If the range on it was increased to 55 or 60, it's old AT stats restored (leave the health where it is,) and it was given a price increase the StuG would have a much more defined role in T3 as a fragile but effective TD.
I personally liked the old StuG III that acted like a specialized TD. It had a clearly defined role. The only problem was that the limited range and presence of SU-85s around the time it arrived pretty much limited it's effectiveness. If the range on it was increased to 55 or 60, it's old AT stats restored (leave the health where it is,) and it was given a price increase the StuG would have a much more defined role in T3 as a fragile but effective TD.
12 Nov 2014, 02:44 AM
#40
1 Posts: 927
It costs 80 fuel and is most durable vehicle in game for that price.
"good" argument, conscripts are better than grenadiers then because for the same price they have more combined health.
wrong
Why would I pay 80 fuel for a assault gun that does the same job as pz4 only with less health and no turret? This unit is only for fanboys of the stug or for the vet ability.
0 user is browsing this thread:
Livestreams
 |
|
|
29 | ||
 |
|
|
230 | ||
 |
|
|
26 | ||
 |
|
|
16 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1231