Profile of Werw0lf

Do you think there's any chance they will buff the stug E since they bumped it back by 2 CP. it has very low health for a tank/assault gun and no hull MG nor pintle MG upgrade so it relies entirely on its main gun which leads to very inconsistent damage IMHO.

Agree it needs a serious buff in the game. Chance of it happening in the face of USF and UKF "everything Axis is OP" whiners = SFA. Call me cynical, but SEGA/Relic's prime directive is to make money, and they know their primary target market geographic and demographic.

As is, I think the StuG III Ausf E is semi-redundant panic call-in most of the time, so I skip it a lot. There are simply better toys to spend on if you aren't in a desperate situation where its entry can impact.

All I find it good for is killing those early light vehicles or (AT) undefended minor emplacements, as its 75mm main gun deals about as much damage as a BB gun. e.g. It should rape a Bofors, which is exactly the kind of job IRL it would and in game should be deployed for. But we all know how well that works. Even worse, it's useless against USF infantry because it kills so few men per shot in the face of USF rifle spam, and they can kill it so easily. And now that the Soviet AT 'nades actually work, they too just shrug off its shots before throwing an AT 'nade damaging its engine so it's a wounded duck before hitting retreat and bringing on something else to kill it off.

IRL the StuG III Ausf A/B/C/D/E were a powerful infantry support AG which kicked arse against infantry and emplacements, their role, and were even good enough to take out '41/42 T-34/76's which is how it was emergency deployed when the Germans first encountered them in Barbarossa before they upgunned the PzKfw IV to Ausf F/H to deal.

The RL StuG III Ausf E didn't have a cupola nor even casemate top mounted external MG, although with the E an MG34 with enclosed drum ammo feed was carried within the crew compartment which could be deployed externally (presumably bipod supported as I have never seen a fixed mount for MG on any E) as a close defense MMG. Only to later Ausfuhrungs was a gunshield added with MG and eventually a remote MG like the Hetzer's (very late Ausf G). Crew access to the E and earlier model's casemate was by barnyard door type upward outer opening hatches.

Most of the time the ass grens will avoid attacking the rifle squads and instead of harass all your unattended resource points. And if they just come around the corner, they are also able to take on your rifle squad by using sprint.

On any map which isn't close quarter which doesn't facilitate movement in cover or dead ground, against any USF player who isn't a total nUb, his usually blobbed and numerically superior rifles firing from cover will just cut down AGs as they sprint across open ground.

As for harrassing unattended resource points, I consider that invalid against any USF player with nous given the ability of USF to infantry outspam any faction including OKW. Makes about as much sense as PE trying to win a capping/decapping war vs US in COH1 1v1 auto unless and until they have booby trap point if going SE doctrine. Even then, and with CAP rate maxed by an expensive fuel upgrade in KGC, their cap rate is still only 2/3 that of US inf. OK different game, but you take on board my point?

So A. highly map dependent, and B. 'Not a good look' against USF generally. If going MAC vs USF, even more important IMV to support with HMGs and other support units definitely avoiding anything resembling AG spam.

Interesting to read of your relative dread of Stug III Ausf E's BTW. I'll take note to explore and exploit this more vs USF. Thanks.

P.S. The above IME with the caveat as self-illustrating from my previous posts, I like/am an advocate of MAC doctrine generally. My view is that MAC doesn't hold as great an advantageous or the same shock impact vs USF, especially in 1v1.

Hi Hi5ee

My 02c worth from a Soviet and OKW 1v1 player perspective, which admittedly, as OKW in the particular I am still sorely learning and think have some serious holes in their composition.

First Crocs, which are so absurdly OP that I won't even deign to discuss them attempting reason. A super-serious nerfing required.

KV-8s OTOH are a great unit, especially vs OKW, but not invulnerable. They do shred all infantry, so as you elaborate, multiple 'shreck squads whether blobbed or even triangulated are tantamount to useless IME playing OKW vs or as Soviets with KV-8. Fact is AFAIAC, OKW just lack solid hard counter AT. Racketenwerfers are short-ranged rubbish relative to all other factions' AT guns.

That said, I'm with the others on the Jagdpanzer IV/L70 as OKW's best available timely solution. Reliance upon mines, whilst not disputing their effectiveness, is fraught with too many "ifs" unless the map constricts pathing through chokepoints or a highly probable traffic lane. And they are too easily negated by mortar fire. Problem with the Jagdpanzer is that it needs to be built (time) rather than being a call in, so it needs to be fielded already, and because it is a Jagdpanzer, accurate anticipatory pre-positioning is paramount to its effectiveness.

Against a better player who will retreat his KV at the first hit, it's unlikely IME that the Jagdpanzer will kill it. But it will contain and restrict his otherwise freedom of manoeuvre. If the Soviet uses dual AT gun creep in conjunction with the KV-8, given that the KV-8 will force infantry retreat allowing AT freedom of movement without risk of infantry overrun, that spells big trouble for OKW IME, forcing the Jagdpanzer to retreat as well because of the fuel resource model seldom allowing the timely fielding of two solid pieces of armour against an able Soviet opponent.

Of course, it's highly situational depending upon losses, but except against an exceptional OKW player who has well above outstanding unit preservation skills, I'd rather be the Soviet than the OKW player every time in this situation.

Last night BTW although a 2v2 auto example rather than 1v1, on Minsk Pocket a map I detest playing regardless, as double Soviet vs double OKW I selected a Soviet Commander with KV-8 call in ability. Late game, I called in a single KV-8 causing both infantry heavy OKW players to flee centre map with immense damage to their infantry and decrewing of almost all their support weapons before they could adequately counter. This then permitted us to creep our AT guns supported by Maxims and Shock Troops so as to destroy two thence unsupported forward deployed OKW command trucks. As the KV-8 moved to attack a third deployed truck and its supporting weapons (Raketenwerfer, stolen MG42 in bunker and Fallshirmjägers), my opponent immediately panic called in a King Tiger to save it. His partner subsequently called in a Jagdtiger. Not unsurprisingly, I beat a hasty retreat with my KV-8. To their credit, they used this armour combined to good effect albeit hampered by the natural restricted speed and manouvreability of heavy TD/tank. They were frightened to come at our centre map AT gun shield with good reason due their number and positioning, and so moved them elsewhere to press us for a VP victory.

The pair certainly contained my KV-8 movement of which I had called in a second to exploit another vulnerability prior to the appearance of the first KT, which in hindsight was a mistake and which caution could have forseen. I was trying to be opportunistically exploitive and underestimated the MP float they must have had. But, hey, it's a RTS pressure game. We make mistakes.

Anyway, as it turned out, on the right hand corner flag flank I contained them and their blobs with AT guns supported by a maxim, mortar and infantry to maintain the critical flag neutral until we could recap it, although they did get one of my KV-8s with the combo. My 2v2 partner had rammed the Jagdtiger with a T-34/76 (losing it in the process) but seriously disabling the Jagdtiger. He then built an Su-85 and I called in an IS-2 whilst they hesitated with the KT remaining to support the crippled Jagdtiger whilst our infantry battled it out trying to assert local supremacy so we could creep out AT guns forward without risk of infantry overrun of their crews. OKW were forced to retreat the infantry blob due losses in the infantry melee further motivated by some timely incendiary arty at which we instantly charged with the IS-2 and Su-85 also creeping our x2 AT guns on that flank forward. We lost both Su-85 and IS-2 to the Jagdtiger + King Tiger combo, so they are undeniably formidable, but killed the Jagdtiger in the process as well as crippling and badly damaging the King Tiger. With infantry support we then crept the AT guns forward to finish it off. At this, our opponents decided they'd had enough. Game over. They were both much higher auto ranked BTW.

So KT or Jagdtiger are good hard counters for OKW, but probably not timely enough in a 1v1 IME as you'll possibly agree? And to be fair, should OKW really have to rely upon 1. a doctrinal call in, and 2. such a late high CP unit which should be and is the equivalent or better of an IS-2 just to deal with a KV-8?

OKW sorely needs better early and mid-game hard counter AT IMV. Maybe the OKW l33t players can deal, but I am fairly certain the average player struggles with this perpetually. If someone has a real and effective practical solution, I am sure I will be as "all ears" to listen to it as you will.

Since the last patch molotovs are much improved. Noticeably more effective, especially versus MGs and mortars given their undeploy time. If used vs a depleted team, a complete model loss is virtually guaranteed.

Against an inf squad where attention is stretched and so momentarily elsewhere load shedding in multiple simultaneous firefights, a thrown molotov just like OKW's replacement incendiary grenade = complete squad loss. OUCH!

It seems kind of odd to me to take this Commander and not use it for Agrens.

Precisely, and the primary reason it is the goto commander if being pressed in opening as aggressive Brits and US spammers are wont to do. IMO, if going MAC, is best to make the decision to do so and choose it immediately the game loads.

Assault Grens may have been nerfed and need to be used prudently, but used well, they still work sufficiently well enough to be worthwhile. i.e. 5 man composition offers resilience, weapons pickup without loss of an entire partially depleted squad, and importantly they have sprint so they can engage at their optimum range. Those three characteristics and abilities are gold. They also offer an unsupported capping independence that pioneres don't. But even more importantly they are available instantly placing more infantry in the field immediately in opening without having to build a building then build 4 man Grens sacrificing valuable time, position -which can be critical, and MP.

Whilst the Mech Assault Group HT mounted PzGrens might be overpriced and not scale particularly well, again, within their initial availability entry window, the HT can be a gamesaver for shock overunnning of deployed MGs or dealing with BS Brit commando or BS Soviet partisans in the particular. Abuse is prevented by their cost.

The Stug E underperforms generally, but it can be critical against early vehicles.

The Tiger at the end is solid as well.

IME all of the above can work especially well with both Ostheer players going MAC in 2v2 auto on some maps in certain situations critical in gaining early control of key positions for denial, which if your opponent is overly aggressive or overloaded, will see him bleed MP.