Login

russian armor

StuG IIIE

26 Sep 2013, 21:44 PM
#21
avatar of Tri86

Posts: 97

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 20:46 PMlink0
Ugh, it's a great unit for its cost. You do realize that you spend zero on teching and building infrastructure for this unit. And it's cheap as nuts.

It's adequate vs infantry and good vs light vehicles. It can even kill an engine damaged T70 far more reliably than a Pak40.


so it's only viable if you don't tech or construct any buildings all game..
26 Sep 2013, 21:47 PM
#22
avatar of Trainzz

Posts: 332 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 21:40 PMTri86


so why would you ever get this over an ostwind?

and did you say early? by the time i get to my second or 3rd tank this thing becomes available.


Because you don't need to tech up to tier 3, which saves a lot of money.

And yeah, if you consider a infantry heavy strategy, where you go for Tier 2 with couple of PGs and your opponent tries to counter that with sniper + infantry of himself, these StuGs gonna hit your opponent really hard as he is only investing in anti-infantry.

And even if you get a P4 before you reach 3 cps, the StuG is still an awesome support unit, with quite a lot of potential to soak up dmg and snipe infantry.

Btw, if you played CoH1, you probably know the StuH42, which came at 4cp. It was even more of a situational unit for most of the time, but it was by no means useless. You have to play it right and force your opponent into a lot of anti-infantry, so that you can surprise him with a tank that costs almost nothing.

On another note, the least you will do with the StuG is to force your opponent into building expensive anti-tank units/weapons. Considering you almost pay nothing for the StuG, this is a really good trade for you.
26 Sep 2013, 21:49 PM
#23
avatar of JohanSchwarz

Posts: 409

Why are people complaining about the new Stug when it only costs 55 fuel? Sure, it's not as good as an Ostwind but it also costs a hell of a lot less.
26 Sep 2013, 21:54 PM
#24
avatar of Tri86

Posts: 97

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 21:47 PMTrainzz


Because you don't need to tech up to tier 3, which saves a lot of money.

And yeah, if you consider a infantry heavy strategy, where you go for Tier 2 with couple of PGs and your opponent tries to counter that with sniper + infantry of himself, these StuGs gonna hit your opponent really hard as he is only investing in anti-infantry.

And even if you get a P4 before you reach 3 cps, the StuG is still an awesome support unit, with quite a lot of potential to soak up dmg and snipe infantry.


except it doesn't snipe infantry... sometimes it'll get a clump but that doesn't happen very often. it has the same anti-inf capabilities as the stug g.

oh and this thing does not soak up damage. it only takes two hits from a 76mm to destroy it. even guards take out chunks of health with each shot.

everything 3 of these can do 1 ostwind can do better.
26 Sep 2013, 22:18 PM
#25
avatar of Trainzz

Posts: 332 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 21:54 PMTri86


except it doesn't snipe infantry... sometimes it'll get a clump but that doesn't happen very often. it has the same anti-inf capabilities as the stug g.

oh and this thing does not soak up damage. it only takes two hits from a 76mm to destroy it. even guards take out chunks of health with each shot.

everything 3 of these can do 1 ostwind can do better.


Maybe I got lucky, but I always end up having a ton of infantry kills on it.

Yeah you are right that it takes only 2 shots from the anti-tank gun, but it soaks up a lot of dmg from the infantry anti-tank weapon and from the T70. I think it also survives quite a bit dmg of the T34.

But again, it is not supposed to be your main tank, as the Ostwind is one. It is a support tank, that is very cheap (120mp is nothing) and comes without any building. It is a situational unit, but that's why it is a commander unit, not one that you get every single game.
26 Sep 2013, 22:38 PM
#26
avatar of Appleseed

Posts: 622

i say it suck because it have about same cost of T70 and not having nearly close to T70's effectiveness?

don't give "it don't need build a building and teching so this unit should suck reason"

KV8 is a unit don't need any buildings only cost 360MP 135FU and its german counter part brummbar which cost 680MP 140FU and require T4, follow that logic why the new Stug 3 should suck, brummbar should have better effectiveness than KV8 because it is more expansive and require teching and building. in the actually play, KV8 have way better performance than Brummbar, it instant wipe infantry like eating a snack, higher armor, higher HP, and less pop. yes Brummbar have more AT like 75 penetration vs KV8's 50 penetration....great for the price, tehcing and building requirement....

26 Sep 2013, 22:51 PM
#27
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

I want stats :(
I can't even look them up myself because the patch seems to have broken the modding tools... would really like to compare it to the Su-76, they could fill comparable roles.


copernicus already updated the extractor :)

its better than an su76. the su76 has better penetration, but the stug has 20% more armor. the stug has the same scatter stats and aoe as an ostwind though, so thats much better than the su76 vs infantry.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApmrrrPr20ncdEpuSHcxNko1VGVFYjczYXpFZWhqOHc#gid=5

look at row 7
26 Sep 2013, 22:58 PM
#28
avatar of link0

Posts: 337

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 21:40 PMTri86


so why would you ever get this over an ostwind?

and did you say early? by the time i get to my second or 3rd tank this thing becomes available.


Because the ostwind requires T3 and a building, which is expensive. It also costs 2x as much and doesn't build instantly.

The Stug 3E is fine, great even. I can see them being very useful in 1on1. Weak/cheap vehicles will always suck in team games though.
26 Sep 2013, 23:09 PM
#29
avatar of Tri86

Posts: 97

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 22:58 PMlink0


Because the ostwind requires T3 and a building, which is expensive. It also costs 2x as much and doesn't build instantly.

The Stug 3E is fine, great even. I can see them being very useful in 1on1. Weak/cheap vehicles will always suck in team games though.


did you not read my other post

you know, the one where i responded directly to you
26 Sep 2013, 23:16 PM
#30
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 23:09 PMTri86


did you not read my other post


jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 21:54 PMTri86


except it doesn't snipe infantry... sometimes it'll get a clump but that doesn't happen very often. it has the same anti-inf capabilities as the stug g.

oh and this thing does not soak up damage. it only takes two hits from a 76mm to destroy it. even guards take out chunks of health with each shot.

everything 3 of these can do 1 ostwind can do better.


your other post isnt really correct. the stug has a target size of 14 compared to the ostwind which has a size of 22. that makes it harder to hit with AT guns. the stug also has slightly better armor. ostwind does have more hp though, but it costs over twice as much and requires teching.

as for its weapon, the short barrel stug has about 1/3 of the distance scatter of the long barrel stug meaning its shots will hit much closer to infantry. on top of that, it has 2.5 AOE compared to the long barrels 1.5. the stug E also rotates 10% faster than the stug G. the stug actually has identical scatter and AOE as the ostwind, so if ostwinds snipe inf, so do short barrel stugs.

you should really know stats for the units youre comparing so you can avoid making false statements.
26 Sep 2013, 23:16 PM
#31
avatar of Tri86

Posts: 97

i say it suck because it have about same cost of T70 and not having nearly close to T70's effectiveness?

don't give "it don't need build a building and teching so this unit should suck reason"

KV8 is a unit don't need any buildings only cost 360MP 135FU and its german counter part brummbar which cost 680MP 140FU and require T4, follow that logic why the new Stug 3 should suck, brummbar should have better effectiveness than KV8 because it is more expansive and require teching and building. in the actually play, KV8 have way better performance than Brummbar, it instant wipe infantry like eating a snack, higher armor, higher HP, and less pop. yes Brummbar have more AT like 75 penetration vs KV8's 50 penetration....great for the price, tehcing and building requirement....



yeah the "it don't need build a building and teching so this unit should suck reason" seems to be the only thing this has going for it.
26 Sep 2013, 23:20 PM
#32
avatar of Tri86

Posts: 97

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 23:16 PMwooof




your other post isnt really correct. the stug has a target size of 14 compared to the ostwind which has a size of 22. that makes it harder to hit with AT guns. the stug also has slightly better armor. ostwind does have more hp though, but it costs over twice as much and requires teching.

as for its weapon, the short barrel stug has about 1/3 of the distance scatter of the long barrel stug meaning its shots will hit much closer to infantry. on top of that, it has 2.5 AOE compared to the long barrels 1.5. the stug E also rotates 10% faster than the stug G. the stug actually has identical scatter and AOE as the ostwind, so if ostwinds snipe inf, so do short barrel stugs.

you should really know stats for the units youre comparing so you can avoid making false statements.


and the ostwind fires in multiple bursts. not all the shots hit, but it gets more chances to shoot. the small target size really doesn't do much for this guy.

"so it's only viable if you don't tech or construct any buildings all game.." isn't correct? did i miss something here?
26 Sep 2013, 23:31 PM
#33
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 23:20 PMTri86



"so it's only viable if you don't tech or construct any buildings all game.." isn't correct? did i miss something here?


thats a completely subjective statement.

im not denying that the ostwind is better, but its more expensive. the stug does 80 damage per shot though, so the radius of its AOE that will 1 shot infantry is larger. it can miss, but if it hits it will be more effective than the ostwind. the ostwind cannot 1 shot full health infantry.

it could still be viable if you dont have enough fuel for a more expensive tank and really need some armor in a hurry. it could also be useful if youre skipping t3 to fast tech to t4. its not as clear cut as you try to make it seem.
26 Sep 2013, 23:56 PM
#34
avatar of Appleseed

Posts: 622

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 22:51 PMwooof


copernicus already updated the extractor :)

its better than an su76. the su76 has better penetration, but the stug has 20% more armor. the stug has the same scatter stats and aoe as an ostwind though, so thats much better than the su76 vs infantry.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApmrrrPr20ncdEpuSHcxNko1VGVFYjczYXpFZWhqOHc#gid=5

look at row 7


i don't think Stug 3E is better than SU76 in anyway, maybe by stats Stug 3 has better AI by auto shots, but SU76 have barrage ability that is anti infantry anti buildings, and it is what ppl are really using all the time to AI with this unit not auto shot, does Stug 3E have the same?

as you say Stug 3E have 20% armor but if u look at stats SU76 have double the penetration . if they fight 1v1 Stug 3E have 45% chance penetrate SU76, and SU76 have 77.5% chance penetrate Stug 3E

i use to compare Stug 3E to T70 yes Stug 3E have better AI by stats on AOE but it miss alot and not effective AI as T70, it have better armor than T70 but T70 can solo it fine by circling it

Stug 3E has same price as SU76 and T70 yet Stug 3E can't beat any of them in AI (by stats yes by actual game play performance no) or AT ability or 1v1 with those unit, maybe able win T70 if T70 sitting duck and fight Stug 3E head on, in reality i don't think anyone will do it.

ps. still don't bring up it don't need building statement it is just not a good reason
27 Sep 2013, 00:21 AM
#35
avatar of Tri86

Posts: 97

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 23:31 PMwooof


thats a completely subjective statement.

im not denying that the ostwind is better, but its more expensive. the stug does 80 damage per shot though, so the radius of its AOE that will 1 shot infantry is larger. it can miss, but if it hits it will be more effective than the ostwind. the ostwind cannot 1 shot full health infantry.

it could still be viable if you dont have enough fuel for a more expensive tank and really need some armor in a hurry. it could also be useful if youre skipping t3 to fast tech to t4. its not as clear cut as you try to make it seem.


you're basically saying that all this is is a shitty stopgap unit. appleseed made the point that the kv8 is also a call-in and it's ridiculously good for it's price. this just isn't the case for the stug e. on that twitch preview one of the developers said that the stug e isn't very good on it's own but if you have a lot of them they'll be very effective. that's just not true. i've tried this many times and they just don't cut it in large numbers. they're fragile and unreliable (slow reload with accuracy that doesn't make up for it). i wish this wasn't the case but i'd take 2 ostwinds over 4 stug e's anyday.

this is one of those situations where you should actually play the game and use the unit rather than theorycraft off stats.

i got an idea. give me a replay where this was used to good effect. doesn't even have to be one where you won or even yours, just a replay that shows thing pulling it's weight.
27 Sep 2013, 01:36 AM
#36
avatar of link0

Posts: 337

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2013, 23:09 PMTri86


did you not read my other post

you know, the one where i responded directly to you


Yes, obviously it's best used in games where you DO NOT tech to T3. What's wrong with that? Nothing. For example, you should never tech T3 if I want to call in T34-85s either. It's just suboptimal play.

If you want to build T3, obvoiusly don't bother with the Stug E.

Teching costs ALWAYS factor into a unit's value.
27 Sep 2013, 01:50 AM
#37
avatar of Appleseed

Posts: 622

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Sep 2013, 01:36 AMlink0


Yes, obviously it's best used in games where you DO NOT tech to T3. What's wrong with that? Nothing. For example, you should never tech T3 if I want to call in T34-85s either. It's just suboptimal play.

If you want to build T3, obvoiusly don't bother with the Stug E.

Teching costs ALWAYS factor into a unit's value.


do you even play as german? if german want T4, german have to tech pass T3 not like russian can just skip it, if russian bring out any SU76, T70 or T34, stug 3E have no stopping power to it, and problem with this unit right now is it come slower than T3 and useless if russian bring out any T3 tank, wait for the tiger? by the time there is enough CP for tiger game lose already. so your suggestion not to tech to T3 is not even possible with stug 3E's stats atm because it can't even hold grounds even with big number,

ps. i saw you ladder, so you are very pro COH2 players so you just use T2 units and stug 3E to hold out until tiger? well i guess it could be too pro for me to do it.
27 Sep 2013, 03:14 AM
#38
avatar of Tri86

Posts: 97

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Sep 2013, 01:36 AMlink0


Yes, obviously it's best used in games where you DO NOT tech to T3. What's wrong with that? Nothing. For example, you should never tech T3 if I want to call in T34-85s either. It's just suboptimal play.

If you want to build T3, obvoiusly don't bother with the Stug E.

Teching costs ALWAYS factor into a unit's value.


yeah except those t34/85s obviously aren't stopgap units. they actually offer something worthwhile that the other t3 units don't (reliable ap, obviously). what does the stug e offer? a cheap, long ranged and armored anti infantry vehicle supposedly. except this thing doesn't do a good job at it, for its price or when massed. it has a long reload time and it misses too much to make up for that making it very unreliable. not to mention its fragile and clumsy.

the t34/85 on the other hand does a great job as a general purpose tank. whenever i get that thing i never wonder "hmm... would it have been a better idea to get a t34/76?"
27 Sep 2013, 04:36 AM
#39
avatar of DerBaer

Posts: 219

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Sep 2013, 03:14 AMTri86
the t34/85 on the other hand does a great job as a general purpose tank. whenever i get that thing i never wonder "hmm... would it have been a better idea to get a t34/76?"


Big difference in cost, man. And also, since there were comparisons to a KV-8 comes out fairly late in the game. There should be lots of AT on the field by then. Don't ya think?
27 Sep 2013, 04:59 AM
#40
avatar of Tri86

Posts: 97

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Sep 2013, 04:36 AMDerBaer


Big difference in cost, man. And also, since there were comparisons to a KV-8 comes out fairly late in the game. There should be lots of AT on the field by then. Don't ya think?


... so whats your point?

they're both good choices. not the case with stug e and ostwind.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

783 users are online: 783 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49077
Welcome our newest member, juliavargascom
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM