StuG life not viable
Posts: 789
They Could be a counter to allied TDs, but they don’t have they have less range than allied TDs and the lack of turrets makes it hard to close the gap
They could be a counter to heavy tanks, but they don’t have enough penetration.
They could be made a counter to light vehicles, but right now they come to late and are overkill
IMO either increase their penetration and damage (heavy counter) or increase their range (TD counter) and move to t3
Wher already has a medium counter, the panzer 4, as it is better than allied mediums
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Wait so like if you have 2 fireflies and both rocket at the same time it'll still do a ful 480 damage?
Why wouldn't it?
You've just paid 200 muni for skillshot ability on top of 100 muni for upgrade on 320 fuel worth of units.
Posts: 783
...
The reason the su76 doesnt see use isnt that it's a poor vehicle. In fact it is quite comparable to the puma. Puma has shorter range and substantially worse penetration at ranges that matter but has smoke a turret and great maneuverability. Getting a T70 and an su76 is very similar to a luchs puma combo but slightly later and a bit more potent.
The problem with the su76 is the redundancy with so many of Soviets early AT options that do their job just well enough. Penals and zis, doctrinally m42 and commonly guards. You can easily delay more serious AT options until tier 4 is available because of these.
Posts: 1351
1. Already mentioned gren not really scaling well into mid/late and ost players just need sth that can help with anti infantry play at that stage if the game.
2. Allies have tank destroyers created to combat heavy axis tanks. When those tank destroyers are used against stugs it's 5 seconds dead stug so it is a very risky unit. Stugs die to poor front armour (wow I agree with Katikof) but also due to less range than those td.
3. Allies also have a lot od snares including satchels. Piats and bazookasand at guns are extremely deadly to stugs and make it even more of a risky unit.
My solution would be to increase stug's range to match other TDs. It would allow them to deal damage further away from allied infantry and allow for some more skill kiting and skill play. Stug would be a fragile unit it is now but with some skill could suppor army composition better and make allied TD move a bit more forward to kill it.
Posts: 3053
Why wouldn't it?
You've just paid 200 muni for skillshot ability on top of 100 muni for upgrade on 320 fuel worth of units.
I thought they changed it because people cried too hard about multiple rockets and stuff lol.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I thought they changed it because people cried too hard about multiple rockets and stuff lol.
Nope, they just made it so single FF can't do it. Not before vet3 that is.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
I think there are two maybe three main stug problems
1. Already mentioned gren not really scaling well into mid/late and ost players just need sth that can help with anti infantry play at that stage if the game.
2. Allies have tank destroyers created to combat heavy axis tanks. When those tank destroyers are used against stugs it's 5 seconds dead stug so it is a very risky unit. Stugs die to poor front armour (wow I agree with Katikof) but also due to less range than those td.
3. Allies also have a lot od snares including satchels. Piats and bazookasand at guns are extremely deadly to stugs and make it even more of a risky unit.
My solution would be to increase stug's range to match other TDs. It would allow them to deal damage further away from allied infantry and allow for some more skill kiting and skill play. Stug would be a fragile unit it is now but with some skill could suppor army composition better and make allied TD move a bit more forward to kill it.
Don't forget to increase its price to 110-120 fuel if so.
Posts: 783
I think there are two maybe three main stug problems-
Don't forget to increase its price to 110-120 fuel if so.
Yeah, a 60 range StuG would easily be at least 110 fuel value. I worry though that a 60 range StuG would negate the late game need for pak and make countering the brummbar very difficult-particularly with spotting scopes.
Posts: 1351
Don't forget to increase its price to 110-120 fuel if so.
I guess it could be an option.
Or one more idea - it could purchase extra range and health/armour upgrade (cost say 150mp plus 20/30fuel) after researching last tech tier from ost or maybe building last tech structure. A bit similar to sherman from the new doctrine but avaliable after tech.
Posts: 1351
Yeah, a 60 range StuG would easily be at least 110 fuel value. I worry though that a 60 range StuG would negate the late game need for pak and make countering the brummbar very difficult-particularly with spotting scopes.
I guess it could be given a chance and we would see.
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
Not a fan of letting them upgrade though. If you invest fuel early you should not be able to be gaining vet and having a field presence that you can then just turn directly into a late game tank destroyer while, say, a soviet player has to tech again and wait for their T4 SU-85.
Posts: 1351
Stripping the StuG if its current duty and bumping the price way up seems liable to lead to Ost having more trouble against medium or light rushes, where the cheaper tag to field a pair really helps. Not that medium spam is common, per se.
Not a fan of letting them upgrade though. If you invest fuel early you should not be able to be gaining vet and having a field presence that you can then just turn directly into a late game tank destroyer while, say, a soviet player has to tech again and wait for their T4 SU-85.
I understand the point and agree. That's why I'd probably go for the range and maybe 100 fuel. It should be fragile and lose to allied TDs such as su85, jackson, firefly, but they shouldn't outrange it (it's more than people normally realise when it comes to how much more micro a weak TD with inferior range requires compared to other TD - in this respect I prefer SU76). It should also be susceptible to flanking by mediums.
Still, sherman gets and ugrade like that, there are still crews on them etc. I wouldn't worry about upgrading one TD for ost that much. Generally, I feel that more upgrades should be given to ostheer after they tech.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
I guess it could be an option.
Or one more idea - it could purchase extra range and health/armour upgrade (cost say 150mp plus 20/30fuel) after researching last tech tier from ost or maybe building last tech structure. A bit similar to sherman from the new doctrine but avaliable after tech.
Stug was spam over on over when it has insane ROF, at that time nobody was complaining that Ostheer infantry was inferior (which is, imo, a sweet bullshit argument).
Stug is simply overshadowed by the Pz4 which is already superior to all allied medium tanks. Nerf Pz4 Pen values and you'll see people build them again.
And just to say, Stug are used on 1vs1 when Ostheer is on the backfoot, it is still a excellent stop gap to keep mediums at bay.
Posts: 186 | Subs: 1
How much truth there is in that statement I do not know but what I do know is that the stug is underperforming. I see 2 possible ways to make it more viable and maybe lessen lategame Panther spam.
1. My preferred method would be upping the range to that of similar TD's. It would still retain all its weaknesses like low armor, no turret, and what seems to me sometimes bad accuracy.
2. Upping it's anti infantry damage to make it less of a early game risk. This reflects the older stug design of being a generalist. I think this option is less desirable though.
Posts: 1351
I heard somewhere on this forum that it's Wher design that axis should have all the tools to win in its tier 3 building and in theory should not have to tech up to tier 4.
How much truth there is in that statement I do not know but what I do know is that the stug is underperforming. I see 2 possible ways to make it more viable and maybe lessen lategame Panther spam.
1. My preferred method would be upping the range to that of similar TD's. It would still retain all its weaknesses like low armor, no turret, and what seems to me sometimes bad accuracy.
2. Upping it's anti infantry damage to make it less of a early game risk. This reflects the older stug design of being a generalist. I think this option is less desirable though.
Yep. Again a nice path to try out. Maybe switch munitions int HE?
Posts: 1351
Ostheer infantry was inferior (which is, imo, a sweet bullshit argument).
Stug is simply overshadowed by the Pz4 which is already superior to all allied medium tanks.
The above is simply not true - sherman vs p4 (but ostheer not okw) is a much more even battle than you think (if you add crew the possibilities it gives, plus non doctrine smoke, plus higher accuracy on the move, plus cheaper price it is actually a better tank than ostheer p4)
I play all factions - you should try that too and see for yourself because what you write here seems to suggest you don;t play ostheer and you probably come across p4 from okw or okw one given for ostheer in the new doctrine.
Oh, and the infantry - 4 man squads are just fragile and can be wiped more easily so you have to pay more attention to them.
A nice video to show what I mean - try minute 9 to see sherman vs ostheer p4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YWYuqRM5hA
Posts: 711
I heard somewhere on this forum that it's Wher design that axis should have all the tools to win in its tier 3 building and in theory should not have to tech up to tier 4.
How much truth there is in that statement I do not know but what I do know is that the stug is underperforming. I see 2 possible ways to make it more viable and maybe lessen lategame Panther spam.
1. My preferred method would be upping the range to that of similar TD's. It would still retain all its weaknesses like low armor, no turret, and what seems to me sometimes bad accuracy.
2. Upping it's anti infantry damage to make it less of a early game risk. This reflects the older stug design of being a generalist. I think this option is less desirable though.
Problem with accuracy could be solved as it was done for su-76 - nerf penetration, increase accuracy - "to better show and help with it main role as ligt\medium conter") arcasm
1. If you will increase range, it just increase backsitting gaming for OST - you will have TD that could killed only with 4 shots from AT and 60 range. Only if it will be treated like SU-76 with 3 shots HP. Player always must have risk, when build low-tier units against high-tier. I hope you agree that OST T3 don't equal soviet or USF T4?
2. I have better option (the similar i suggested for su-76 - "split upgrades") - default stug become is Stug-e, but you can upgrade it to Stug-G. Problem solved. Want AI power with lack AT - build Stug-e, want AT with poor AI - Stug-G.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Stripping the StuG if its current duty and bumping the price way up seems liable to lead to Ost having more trouble against medium or light rushes, where the cheaper tag to field a pair really helps. Not that medium spam is common, per se.
Not a fan of letting them upgrade though. If you invest fuel early you should not be able to be gaining vet and having a field presence that you can then just turn directly into a late game tank destroyer while, say, a soviet player has to tech again and wait for their T4 SU-85.
Meds will see re-emergence when heavies will be all tech bound.
You'll have a choice of 1 heavy or 2 meds with no resource advantage to either, so the choice will be to consider contrary to current tech skip that gives call-in heavies clear advantage.
Posts: 4474
by ur logic should we just nerf penal and not buff cons to make them viable ? Cause that’s ur argument right now with stug a p4
Stug was spam over on over when it has insane ROF, at that time nobody was complaining that Ostheer infantry was inferior (which is, imo, a sweet bullshit argument).
Stug is simply overshadowed by the Pz4 which is already superior to all allied medium tanks. Nerf Pz4 Pen values and you'll see people build them again.
And just to say, Stug are used on 1vs1 when Ostheer is on the backfoot, it is still a excellent stop gap to keep mediums at bay.
Posts: 4474
then what about 55 range ?
Problem with accuracy could be solved as it was done for su-76 - nerf penetration, increase accuracy - "to better show and help with it main role as ligt\medium conter") arcasm
1. If you will increase range, it just increase backsitting gaming for OST - you will have TD that could killed only with 4 shots from AT and 60 range. Only if it will be treated like SU-76 with 3 shots HP. Player always must have risk, when build low-tier units against high-tier. I hope you agree that OST T3 don't equal soviet or USF T4?
2. I have better option (the similar i suggested for su-76 - "split upgrades") - default stug become is Stug-e, but you can upgrade it to Stug-G. Problem solved. Want AI power with lack AT - build Stug-e, want AT with poor AI - Stug-G.
Livestreams
4 | |||||
16 | |||||
11 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1101614.642+2
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Durddcdy23
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM