Lets talk Stuart

Jump back to quoted post7 Mar 2015, 21:17 PMdrChengele

Yeah losing a Stuart to a Panzer or a Panther is not really the problem, it's supposed to be that way. The problem is the Schreck blobs. Three Schreck shots and it's done. Someone needs to check the target size in the files because it acts like a rocket magnet. They rarely miss.

Rifles do scouting better and with less resource wipe potential. It gets practically hardcountered by infantry. There is a window of opportunity against Obers before the Panther arrives provided you manage to chase the Volks off.

Jump back to quoted post8 Mar 2015, 19:08 PMWingZero

How about make Stuart a strict AI light tank like the T-70 and Luchs and buff the gun and AOE.

Jump back to quoted post8 Mar 2015, 19:15 PMKatitof

I'd much rather see the firepower stay where it is and it getting 400hp.
Out of lights, stuart should be superior, not inferior in firepower and survivability to two other lights.

Jump back to quoted post8 Mar 2015, 17:36 PMJHeartless

Target Size is 19
T70 is 18
Luchs is 18
JagdPanzer IV is 17

If you look at the target size of all USF armor its abnormally large for its class. Sherman larger then T34, Stuart then T70, Jackson the size of a T34/85/Panther etc etc.

The problem is the REDIC 60% accuracy sooo lets look at this shall we?

.025 far and .05 near just like the Bazooka

The zook gets 1.29 buff at Vet 3 Rifles and Shrek gets 1.6 more or less at Vet 5.

So at far its .04 which means 47.5%? Chance to directly hit and someone smarter then me can explain how Scatter can still make a miss a hit cause I am not so smart.

Also smarter folks feel free to correct my poor Maths.

Jump back to quoted post8 Mar 2015, 19:54 PMferwiner

Target size of usf vehicles is historically justified. I mean large target size was a primary feature (and a disadvantage of course) of all us vehicle at the time. This was because of large, vertical engines used in their tanks. Simply sherman or m3/5 with small size is like IS-2 with small gun and no armour, as unrealistic as possible. Ofc I'm not saying the game is or should be realistic but it should keep at least minimum levels of realism.

Jump back to quoted post8 Mar 2015, 20:01 PMJHeartless

Certain "Realism" is cherry picked and they tend to be to the negatives.

Jump back to quoted post8 Mar 2015, 21:18 PMThunderhun

Should have more HP and better damage, I hate when it gets 2 shotted.

Right now the whole tier is junk

Also; cannister shot or smoke or command tank upgrade would be pretty neat.

Jump back to quoted post9 Mar 2015, 01:47 AMWhat Doth Life?!

I got this POS to vet 2 in a game and barely broke 100% efficiency. It is clearly over-costed for performance.

Jump back to quoted post9 Mar 2015, 02:28 AMmiragefla

I know the Stuart needs help, but But USF efficiency is kind of broken with their vehicles as you're constantly getting in and out of your vehicles which resets it I think. I can get Vet 3 Shermans and still not break 1000% efficiency.

Jump back to quoted post9 Mar 2015, 03:39 AMspectre645

The stuart is actually not too bad. i use it as a stopgap when i go for easy 8 as American. I don't care much for the captain but that tier has the much needed AT guns to support the easy 8s.

The stuart is simply a stop gab along that road. The sight buff at vet 1 helps a lot for AT gun sights and the tank itself is a nice deterrent for obers, so they don't completely walk all over you.

Another great thing about it is if i manage to get a bit of vet with the stuart then i simply swap out crews with my fresh easy 8 to give me head start.

It's not the best light vehicle but it is certainly not the worst (*cough* 222).

Jump back to quoted post7 Mar 2015, 02:38 AMVuther

While the idea of that gave me a most normal boner, I'm regrettably reading that it only had 3 .30 cals make it to production and it didn't use a .50 (initial M3 Stuarts did have 5 M1919A4s, but it got reduced to three definitely by the time the M5A1 got made. Any variants that I could find which had a .50 cal had it in place of its gun turret)...probably because it couldn't fire them all off at once anyway, like you said.

I do agree with making it better against infantry with its MGs though. The less main guns squad-wiping the better, but that's no reason to keep the Stuart bad.