Let's talk about the scott

I dont even want to answer to you. You are just being silly now. He said no one picks USF because they are not good and then you twist his words around and make it look like he said USF is OP and ez win. What´s the point?

Thanks for reading my earlier post blvckdream.

I actually think USF is in a bad spot atm because the late game potential often doesn't matter/can't salvage an already-lost game. I'd much rather play Soviets - far more versatile, with much better ability to handle as well as apply early game pressure, and a far more dominant mid-game with T70 and Guards (often with sniper).

I do think the Scott is very good, and I use it often in 1v1 games - but I do often forget that the Scott isn't exactly cheap, so I might simply be evaluating it incorrectly. I suppose we'll have a new consensus on balance once USF revamp kicks in.

That is simply not true, I strive for a balanced and fun game for everyone. The Scott is overperforming IMO, this thread is about the Scott, so I gave my opinion that it needed an ROF nerf. This thread has nothing to do with the Axis rocket artillery. If you want to discuss those, make a thread about them and I'll support it with my views that I have stated above.

OK i will put it simply for you. USF needs this unit to compete against absolutely busted rocket arty from axis side. USF doesnt have rocket arty (unless you count clliope wich is shit) and relies on scotts to provide late game indirect fire. If you nerf scotts in any significant way usf will be EVEN more shit in team games and in late game scenarios in general than it is now.

Oh and btw why do you think that scotts are overperforming? You basing it on last 2v2 tournament results or your random 4v4 games?

OK i will put it simply for you. USF needs this unit to compete against absolutely busted rocket arty from axis side. USF doesnt have rocket arty (unless you count clliope wich is shit) and relies on scotts to provide late game indirect fire.

I will put it simply for you too, the proposed nerf(s) do not touch the Scott's INDIRECT fire ability but aim to tone down its DIRECT auto fire, that is overperforming. Most even suggest to buff the barrage ability in return, something I would agree with.

I will put it simply for you too, the proposed nerf(s) do not touch the Scott's INDIRECT fire ability but aim to tone down it's DIRECT auto fire that is overperforming. Most even suggest to buff the barrage ability in return, something I would agree with.

So I'm sorry but your argument is completely invalid and irrelevant.

That's semantic, scott is considerate as indirect fire (wrongly) but that's isn't an argument here. Buffing the barrage in exchange of direct fire nerf is just a straight nerf at the end.

I will put it simply for you too, the proposed nerf(s) do not touch the Scott's INDIRECT fire ability but aim to tone down its DIRECT auto fire, that is overperforming. Most even suggest to buff the barrage ability in return, something I would agree with.

I will ask again why do you think scott is overperforming? Did you get rekt by scott spam in some 4v4 game and now seek vengance? Did you spectate some top player trolling low rank newbs with scotts? Who told you that scotts are overperforming? Why do you think scotts are performing better than rocket arty on axis side (since scott has to compete with axis rocket arty)?

Works as intended but according to our forum experts only scott deserves nerfs. Stuka and pwerfer every game wiping squads left right and center is fine.

Last time I checked stuka and pwerfer dont have 400 hp and get panic smoke. Nor can they trade shots with light vehicles that come to kill them.

Last time I checked stuka and pwerfer dont have 400 hp and get panic smoke. Nor can they trade shots with light vehicles that come to kill them.

I dont get your "argument". You want to make scott barrage as effective at wiping squads as stuka and pwerfer but taking away its 400hp, autofire and smoke? Deal.

I dont get your "argument". You want to make scott barrage as effective at wiping squads as stuka and pwerfer but taking away its 400hp, autofire and smoke? Deal.

My game experience shows that:

-StuKa-zu-Fuß is good versus a column of light units, it will kill with ~30% a support-weapon by a direct hit. With luck you will hit with multible rockets and kill it directly.

-Panzerwerfer is good versus blobbs, will kill a support-weapon with 2-3 hits, at close rage the potential is very high.

They are really good, but in a comparison Scott is also able to kill a support-weapon with 2-3 shots. And because of its accuracy and frequenz of shots it will do so. It can't stop a hole assault of infantry-men, but it will bleed support-weapons and small-units same as e.g. a Panzerwerfer can.

BUT it is able to kill units in run, with very less micro.


It is possible to handle that, if you reduce your inantry to a minimum. So many people scream for changes, so why:



I think it would be interresting how it would perform, if it gets same projectile as StuG E, slower speed, less accuracy, but with higher angle. All for more aoe-effect. So it would still work good versus support-weapons, but can't hit running units anymore, because of slow Shell "hit-Ground" is more difficult to manage.

Scotts are practical, very good for their price but with how USF weapon teams get deleted by Rocket Arty (which USF has no access to because the Calliope is currently garbage), they need the Scott as a way to smoke and kill team weapons that doesn't bleed manpower.

Huh, guess the "good player" variable is a big part of this because often when I play as allies in team games, I'll have USF team mates who go 2-3 scotts and get their asses handed to them hard.

Usually because they have no AT and can't react to a p4 push.

I guess jackson+scott combo is strong, but that's 230 fuel + hundreds of manpower.. and at that point I wonder if you're already at such a disadvantage that it's hard to recover regardless of what USF was using.

The scott just needs a role reversal. It needs to be way better when using the barrage ability and worse when using auto-fire. The barrage is garbage, and auto-fire is godly.

The scott just needs a role reversal. It needs to be way better when using the barrage ability and worse when using auto-fire. The barrage is garbage, and auto-fire is godly.

I only use the offensive barrage over shot blockers, else use smoke, it's free.

Its totally easy when i use them...exspacilly in teamgames where u can shot with it from 3. line.

it gety many wipes when u have 2 of them...superfast...smoke..high accurrys...high range...losing them is mostly u failed hard.

I dont get your "argument". You want to make scott barrage as effective at wiping squads as stuka and pwerfer but taking away its 400hp, autofire and smoke? Deal.

You don't get that a unit that has higher survivability, needs less dps to be balanced? Why is that hard to understand?

You don't get that a unit that has higher survivability, needs less dps to be balanced? Why is that hard to understand?

Are you feeling ok? Tiger Ace has less dps than p4? Brummbar has less dps than sherman he? Who told you that its the rule in this game? Also whats your point again? You want to turn scott into pwerfer/stuka type of unit? You want all late game indirect fire sources to be nerfed? Or do you want only usf units to be nerfed and axis ones left as they are?

Are you feeling ok? Tiger Ace has less dps than p4? Brummbar has less dps than sherman he? Who told you that its the rule in this game? Also whats your point again? You want to turn scott into pwerfer/stuka type of unit? You want all late game indirect fire sources to be nerfed? Or do you want only usf units to be nerfed and axis ones left as they are?

Oh I apologize that I didn't explain the extended unit dynamics when comparing unit roles in a single post.

I thought the concept similar units having a similar sum of offence and defence would have been sufficient to comprehend without stating the obvious other factors of cost, mobility, ease of access, its place in the faction, etc might come into play.

Also this is the second poist where you have put words in my mouth and made up things about "what I want," don't try to strawman eh?

Oh I apologize that I didn't explain the extended unit dynamics when comparing unit roles in a single post.

I thought the concept similar units having a similar sum of offence and defence would have been sufficient to comprehend without stating the obvious other factors of cost, mobility, ease of access, its place in the faction, etc might come into play.

Also this is the second poist where you have put words in my mouth and made up things about "what I want," don't try to strawman eh?

Another reply, another non argument gibberish and we still dont know why you and few others here want scott nerfs specificaly. Im really trying to look for some outrageously strong usf performances including scott "abuse" in tournament level play or high rank ladder. But all i can find is axis vs soviets/brits rocket arty fest. But i guess we can nerf usf some more, for fun.

And im not trying to put words in your mouth. Just want to get some arguments out of you other than "lets nerf scott because i think they op".

Another reply, another non argument gibberish and we still dont know why you and few others here want scott nerfs specificaly. Im really trying to look for some outrageously strong usf performances including scott "abuse" in tournament level play or high rank ladder. But all i can find is axis vs soviets/brits rocket arty fest. But i guess we can nerf usf some more, for fun.

And im not trying to put words in your mouth. Just want to get some arguments out of you other than "lets nerf scott because i think they op".

Could your point out exactly where in my post where I called for nerfs on the Scott?

Could your point out exactly where in my post where I called for nerfs on the Scott?

You are right i have the feeling you came here for the sake of arguing. Please if you dont want to answer any question dont reply more.

Another reply, another non argument gibberish and we still dont know why you and few others here want scott nerfs specificaly. Im really trying to look for some outrageously strong usf performances including scott "abuse" in tournament level play or high rank ladder. But all i can find is axis vs soviets/brits rocket arty fest. But i guess we can nerf usf some more, for fun.

And im not trying to put words in your mouth. Just want to get some arguments out of you other than "lets nerf scott because i think they op".

Have you looked at his player card? He is a really good 2v2 player. However, his experience is "balanced" only if you consider roughly 5000 games as OKW versus 11 games as USF to be balanced. Most of the other players that are calling for the nerf have similarly balanced player cards.

The exceptions are a couple of good (roughly rank 100) 1v1 players, who probably have had problems playing against a better player who used double Scotts in a 1v1. Whoever beat them with double Scotts probably would've beat them with whatever they felt like using in that game.