Can we adjust the Scott already?

Lethal Radius on the SU is 1.5, Lethal Radius on the Scott is 1.35.
Su-76 has a radius of 5 compared to the Scott's radius of 4.
SU-76 reloads faster.

However, much more importantly, the barrage is an AI upgrade to the SU-76's gun.
The barrage is an AI downgrade to the Scott, which can otherwise autofire at infantry as they move.


None of this is very important to the fact that the Scott compares very poorly to the SU-76 because they are a AT/AI unit respectively.

That does not justify you description of the Scott's barrage as "useless".

The barrage is inline with other units (better then mortars/min howizter ) and compared to SU-76 it can barrage on the move and provide smoke barrage. It useful in countering ATGs or static emplacement.

I would trade the TWP ability of the Stug-E for a barrage similar to the Scott any day.

Finally the unit is OP, it very hard to counter and does lots of damage.

Post invised for not being able to adjust the amount of ad hominem, which must be zero. Continue with the discussion about the Scott, please.

Why not the LeiG treatment? Reduce aoe but increase chance to snipe the model?

I stand by it being generally useless because the autofire is consistently more useful. On rare occasions you may want to barrage an AT gun from outside its range, but the scatter at 80 range and the inability to track a target make it a minor inconvenience more than a major threat. Useful for buildings, not much else.


The damage is a bit little higher than a mortar HT (Radius 1 vs. 1.35 lethal, 4 vs 6 dmage at far AoE, same splash radius).

No, it's not OP. Its not much harder to counter than the average mortar HT or LeiG and it arrives really, really late.

I stand by it being generally useless because the autofire is consistently more useful.

On rare occasions you may want to barrage an AT gun from outside its range, but the scatter at 80 range and the inability to track a target make it a minor inconvenience more than a major threat. Useful for buildings, not much else.

Than you I suggest you change your wording, since it that auto-fire that is too good and not the barrage that is bad. If in you opinion barrage UP compared to auto-fire saying "barrage is useless" does not convey that message...

I personally find the barrage better than TWP that Stug-E has.

The damage is a bit little higher than a mortar HT (Radius 1 vs. 1.35 lethal, 4 vs 6 dmage at far AoE, same splash radius).

No, it's not OP. Its not much harder to counter than the average mortar HT or LeiG and it arrives really, really late.

Check your stats the majority of mortar (if not all) have a kill radius 0. In addition Scott is able to hit moving targets while mortars can not, it is simply superior.

Than you I suggest you change your wording, since it that auto-fire that is too good and not the barrage that is bad. If in you opinion barrage UP compared to auto-fire saying "barrage is useless" does not convey that message...

I personally find the barrage better than TWP that Stug-E has.

I said relatively useless for a reason, and I stand by it. Relative is a qualifying term. I will rarely if ever need a Scott barrage but the SU-76 barrage (which I was comparing it to at the time) allows my TD to also fill an AI and Anti Blob role that the unit would otherwise be hopeless at.

The barrage is not usually worthwhile because it cannot track targets and unlike units alsuch as the Brumm the shells are not blasty enough to constitute proper area denial for moving infantry.

Check your stats the majority of mortar (if not all) have a kill radius 0. In addition Scott is able to hit moving targets while mortars can not, it is simply superior.

As far as I am aware the only mortar this is even nearly true for is the T0 american, which was explicitly brought down from near AoE 1 to 0.75. They all still do 80 damage.

I said relatively useless for a reason, and I stand by it. Relative is a qualifying term. I will rarely if ever need a Scott barrage but the SU-76 barrage (which I was comparing it to at the time) allows my TD to also fill an AI and Anti Blob role that the unit would otherwise be hopeless at.

The barrage is not usually worthwhile because it cannot track targets and unlike units alsuch as the Brumm the shells are not blasty enough to constitute proper area denial for moving infantry.

StuG E is perhaps a better comparison. The 76 is a TD with a circmstantially useful barrage, rather than the Scott's generally useless one.

See any difference?

The claim:
"Scott's barrage is generally useless one"
as I pointed is simply false, now pls move on.

As far as I am aware the only mortar this is even nearly true for is the T0 american, which was explicitly brought down from near AoE 1 to 0.75. They all still do 80 damage.

Allow me to make you aware of some changes then, because you are simply wrong:

May 2018

MORTAR CHANGES

A number of general changes have been applied to a number of light indirect-fire options to reduce their squad wipe potential, improve anti-garrison counterplay, and reduce their range in the late game.
• Damage to garrisoned squads increased from 0.25 to 0.5
• AOE near damage multiplier decreased from 1 to 0.85
• Veterancy barrage range bonuses replaced by barrage scatter reduction for the majority of light indirect fire options.

The barrage is useless because it does not take out stationary targets like at guns or mgs. The enemy does not even need to move them to survive. The scott is too good vs advancing infantry but garbage at displacing defenses.

The barrage is useless because it does not take out stationary targets like at guns or mgs. The enemy does not even need to move them to survive. The scott is too good vs advancing infantry but garbage at displacing defenses.

From experience, I only use the barrage vs OKW T3, little by little till 1/2 life then rush a tank to finish the job.

The barrage is useless because it does not take out stationary targets like at guns or mgs. The enemy does not even need to move them to survive. The scott is too good vs advancing infantry but garbage at displacing defenses.

Number say another story:

Barrage
Show Spoiler

Scott's barrage and Pack howitzer's barrage are comparable.

See any difference?

The claim:
"Scott's barrage is generally useless one"
as I pointed is simply false, now pls move on.

Slip on the wording, but I stand by the point. The Scott barrage is in most situations worse than direct fire.

Allow me to make you aware of some changes then, because you are simply wrong:

May 2018

MORTAR CHANGES

A number of general changes have been applied to a number of light indirect-fire options to reduce their squad wipe potential, improve anti-garrison counterplay, and reduce their range in the late game.
• Damage to garrisoned squads increased from 0.25 to 0.5
• AOE near damage multiplier decreased from 1 to 0.85
• Veterancy barrage range bonuses replaced by barrage scatter reduction for the majority of light indirect fire options.

Missed that, but in retrospect I probably should have figured it. Full health squads eating dirct shells spring to mind.

I was always of the impression the mortar had the damage reduction against cover, rather than built in to the shell itself.

A concession but not an important one. Mortars are a bit worse against models in open ground than I thought, but the scott being where it is still sits fine with me having used it, MHTs and Pack Howitzers routinely.

...
I was always of the impression the mortar had the damage reduction against cover, rather than built in to the shell itself.
...

It was tested to have lower damage vs yellow cover, but I pointed that then mortar's effectiveness would be reduce in late when there is plenty of yellow cover similar to hmgs.

Number say another story:

Barrage
Show Spoiler

Scott's barrage and Pack howitzer's barrage are comparable.

Use the barrage in game.

I dont think comparing the scott to Assault Guns/ Rocket Arti is going to get us anywhere, it really is a unit that doesnt have a comparable equal in other factions imo.

I dont think nerfing its AI or lethality is a good idea, its a t4 light howizter and if its AI was nerfed everyone would swap to the Sherman instead.

I do think it needs a nerf however but I would prefer its survivability/mobility nerfed. Something like removing smoke and/or nerfing its on the move accuracy.

Therefore it still is a great AI unit but isn't able to get away every time or kite and wipe units consistently on the move.

Use the barrage in game.

I do.

If you expect to work at max range firing into the for of war it will not, most other barrage (other than big caliber artillery) will not work either.

I don't play 1v1s so my perception of balance in this game mode is distorted by casts and replays I watched, but I got feeling that USF generally have hard time to hold ground against 1st Pz.IV as it comes earlier than your Sherman or Jackson because as USF you try to rush out an early LV and push as much as you can from shock effect.

So, I've tried to make roughly the same army compositions and place them on timeline. The picture is very rough, but it is enough to represent the idea.

1) ---------T3-----Scott-----------Jackson------Scott
2) -----Stuart---------T3----------Jackson------Scott
3) -----Stuart---------T3--------Sherman------------Jackson
4) --222------BP3---T3--------Pz.IV--------Pz.IV

I know, not really a correct question, but still - what is stronger here by overall effectiveness (timing/cost/synergy/AT vs AI balance/whatever).

Personally I think that double Pz.IV just wreck stuff at the time 2nd one hits the field. And if I counted fuel correctly - after 222 they hit the field much earlier than Stuart + Jackson + double Scotts so heavily discussed here. As usual Wehrmacht will have hard time surviving LV phase.

I do.

If you expect to work at max range firing into the for of war it will not, most other barrage (other than big caliber artillery) will not work either.

Then there is no reason not to get a sherman. Players do not get the scott for its barrage.
The barrage sukz azz.

I love me some Scotts. I love to build two of them. They are the best lategame tool for USF to deal with entrenched MGs, ATGs, and infantry from either axis faction.

They are definitely too strong for their price. At 70 fuel, they are far too efficient. Part of the issue with them is that they are almost a crutch for USF in teamgames. Without Scotts, there really isn't much to write home about in terms of USF lategame.

I think the best fix for them would be to lower their autofire range to 45/50, and remove their ability to OHK models on autofire. I think this would be a fair nerf, as it would keep its strengths, while removing some of the aspects of the unit that lead to frustration on the hand of the opponent. I would absolutely not touch the units durability, which is a requirement for any lategame unit, and which will be needed if the autofire range is nerfed. However you look at it, the Scott is definitely designed as a mobile assault support unit, and will need the durability to support Shermans and Jacksons in combat.

If the unit is then found lacking, I would rather see a buff to the barrage, either by making it HEAT, or making it able to fire WP shells.

The most devastating thing about scotts are that their rockets are heat seeking. If a Brum is on autofire, one way to counter it is simply to move the infantry around. Try doing that vs scotts. Their accuracy is not affected. 2 scotts do better than a Brumbar as they easily outrange a Brumbar, have much higher RoF, more mobile, have decent accuracy on the move for some reason, and don't need to attack ground every shot to be effective and hence overall require a lot less micro. Not sure what exactly to nerf with the scott, maybe cooldown.