again IF u take 2 identical tank for 1 u increase the armor to have 50% chance to deflect while the other fire 2 shells , they will still be the same as the other tank will pen every 2 shots. In theory. But RNG is RNG. the old su85 used to shoot every 2 seconds with vet, but it wasn't reliable against anything but a p4. If there was a way to force RNG to align then for sure. As of now it's a crap shoot
StuG life not viable
Posts: 5279
Posts: 4474
. In theory. But RNG is RNG. the old su85 used to shoot every 2 seconds with vet, but it wasn't reliable against anything but a p4. If there was a way to force RNG to align then for sure. As of now it's a crap shootwell it’s the same for armor , it’s just rng
Posts: 1351
Posts: 785
That said, this unit is fine; it's already meta in high level games (unlike, say, the SU-76)
Posts: 1289
All 3 units are solid. No buffs needed what so ever. Stug is a medium td. Its not supossed to fight heavy armour unlike allied td,s.
The issue is the targets for each. Allies have strong inf. Hence the need for p4 and ostwind. Allies mostly skip medium or only make few. Because their hard counter a.k.a. the panther(s) can come out moments later. And only allied td,s can fight that effectively.
So imo the threat of panthers being rushed wich is not uncommon deprive the stug from their targets.
Posts: 1527
Permanently BannedPosts: 3114 | Subs: 2
Not if you have significantly lower chance to pen.
You will have double the amount of chances, sure, but these chances are low.
What has better odd of getting what you need?
Scoring 2 or better on D4 dice across 4 throws or scoring 4 or better 6 times in a row on D6 dice?
That is why RoF favors AI performance and armor favors AT performance.
For the setting that you assume - an isolated environment - this is wrong.
This whole discussion is pretty much arbitrary, as nobody uses ingame stats to say what they actually mean. So everyone just makes up their own scenario, because it was never defined what exactly you guys are discussing about.
To the point though:
In a fight between two vehicles, vehicle 1 getting a let's say 50% armor bonus, and vehicle 2 getting an equivalent ROF (note: not reload) bonus to compensate, the outcome of the fight should not change, right? A vehicle with half the pen chance, but double the ROF performs the same as a vehicle with normal pen chance and normal ROF, right? Wrong!
The ROF buff is more favored in vehicle vs vehicle combat due to the RNG nature of the game.
The chance of vehicle 2 to pen vehicle 1 will decrease, but still it has the chance to pen 4 times in a row. Due to the ROF buff, the time to kill will decrease in this scenario. Vehicle 1 will theoretically bounce more shots, but also get hit more often. As vehicle 1 does not get an ROF buff, the time to kill vehicle 2 will remain the same. The expectancy value remains the same, but the variance increases. Now you could argue that the variance increases similarly for lucky RNG and unlucky RNG, since CoH2 models a normal distribution, and that is correct. That's why our expectancy value stays the same. But unlucky RNG for vehicle 2 does not matter. We usually don't see these cases, since vehicle 2 is dead by then anyway.
You can visualize that better if we exaggerate in a similar scenario: vehicle 1 could take 10 shots, but will never bounce; vehicle 2 can only take one shot, but will bounce 90% of the enemy shots. Expectancy value for both vehicles is 10. But vehicle 1 will win most fights, since the it has 9 chances to kill vehicle 2 before it will be killed for sure. The 11th chance upwards does not count, as vehicle 1 will be dead anyway.
So, to sum it up:
ROF buff is good for AT AND AI. If ROF buff is equivalent to an armor buff (and both buffs actually matter), the ROF buff is favored also in vehicle combat.
There are other factors though, that do not favor ROF in an in-game scenario, and the most important one is alpha damage. It does not matter if you could shoot your enemy 10 times before he takes a second shot, if your enemy is smart enough to fall back after one shot and come back when reloaded. If you want to use your vehicles strength, then you MUST push into the enemy to best use the time while he is reloading. Obviously, this is often not the best option.
Posts: 4474
Posts: 888
Posts: 1484
Posts: 3053
I'd rather have +30% armor -30% reload then -50% reload alone.
High DPS doesn't matter much if you don't live long enough to benefit from it, Pershing being exception of its class and still having to tail it the moment something posing even remote threat appears nearby.
I'd rather have not the freakin garbage cromwell lmao.
Posts: 214
the stugs stays relevant even in the lategame.
u can go for stug+ost into Tiger or other combos.
Maybe u can fight of or save retreat against jacksons.
Posts: 5279
why not a cripple shot(Faust) for 30 mun?
the stugs stays relevant even in the lategame.
u can go for stug+ost into Tiger or other combos.
Because cheap spammable AT that is mobile and can snare is an awful AWFUL idea....
Maybe u can fight of or save retreat against jacksons.
Posts: 789
I do not really see how tying super heavies to tech will make medium tanks more attractive.
Allies have little reason to invest in mediums since their infatry can beat axis infatry and their TDs can deal with all armor and axis have little reason to invest heavily in medium since allied TDs can hit and penetrate the PzIV with almost 100% chance even at 60 range.
Yeah pretty much.
Allies buy TDs instead of mediums because their infantry can already beat axis infantry
Axis buy P4 instead of stug/JP4 because their infantry can’t beat allied infantry
Asymmetrical design at its finest
Posts: 789
I think TWP should cause the driver injured crit. It’s a temporary crit so it isn’t as oppressive, and doesn’t allow the stug to straight up win a fight like a improved stun would
Posts: 1289
Yeah pretty much.
Allies buy TDs instead of mediums because their infantry can already beat axis infantry
Axis buy P4 instead of stug/JP4 because their infantry can’t beat allied infantry
Asymmetrical design at its finest
The allied mediums fall between a rock and a hard place.
Their ai is welcome but not needed. Their at capabilities while fine vs p4,s only become worse and unreliable as the game drags on.
The bigger the game mode the more panthers you see. Not to mention super heavies. All of wich man handle stock mediums.
Panthers can come at the same time as allied mediums come out. Making their effective windows pretty small.
This creates a problem for allies. They cant effectivly fight heavy armour with their stock mediums. So not going for td,s or going for callin tanks is throwing the game in a lot of cases.
This in turn deprives the stug and jagdpz4 of their intended targets.
Posts: 783
6 second reload (down from 4.5-5.5)
140-160-180 pen (down from 170-185-200)
It would be far more affordable part of a lineup that can still aid in zoning out mediums but you wont completely sacrifice your next P4 by getting one.
Note that in comparison to the su76, the StuG with these changes would have lower dps, lower penetration, lower range and lack a barrage but have more hp, more armor, more consistent damage potential vs infantry+AA, higher alpha damage per shot.
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
As is, StuGs are a good way to support a panther against IS2s and Pershings, however. Do you really want to trade that off by lowering its pen?
Posts: 783
At that point, its an SU-76. Trading a 4th hit of hp for 10 less range. Damage would need to drop a bit too.
As is, StuGs are a good way to support a panther against IS2s and Pershings, however. Do you really want to trade that off by lowering its pen?
It would still be distinct enough, I think with target weakpoint superior pen to P4 and its low cost it would be an acceptable support for the panther against everything but the super heavies.
Edit: Pardon I didnt fully answer your question. To be honest I find generally ostheer infantry based AT to be better at supporting a panther against the pershing and IS2 not stugs atm. Stugs are ok but lack the range to properly zone an IS2 or pershing particularly once the former hits vet 2. You are better off upgrading a squad of pgrens, getting an extra pak or saving for a second panther than using a stug.
Posts: 711
Maybe substantially reduce the cost of the StuG to like 75 or 70 fuel but drastically cut its AT performance as well like:
6 second reload (down from 4.5-5.5)
140-160-180 pen (down from 170-185-200)
It would be far more affordable part of a lineup that can still aid in zoning out mediums but you wont completely sacrifice your next P4 by getting one.
Note that in comparison to the su76, the StuG with these changes would have lower dps, lower penetration, lower range and lack a barrage but have more hp, more armor, more consistent damage potential vs infantry+AA, higher alpha damage per shot.
Stug problem not stats and not performance. For what it doing, it good - counter mediums.
Problem that ally prefers build TD not mediums - because panther. Want to see more stugs? Make that all top-tier TD and Panther could be build only 1 (like heavies) or drastically increase their cost and pop. Then every nation will be build more mediums and light TD. But i think, such decision will break gameplay.
Livestreams
21 | |||||
14 | |||||
188 | |||||
3 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.653231.739+13
- 2.839223.790+2
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.278108.720+29
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.645.928+5
- 8.922406.694+1
- 9.1122623.643+3
- 10.265138.658+2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger