|
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. |
If it was absolutely wild like you mention it, it would have numerous of threads already opened on the forum about it. Does it? I mean there are more threads about the Scott than the Sherman by a large margin.
So I'm back to my point. Sherman IA is fine like any other Medium, in fact Medium tank IA performance is probably one of the best balanced thing in the game.
See my question from another angle if it is so hard to understand the way I expressed it first: What Stugs and Jpz4 are for if Pz4s are enough to deal with Shermans/Cromwell/T34.
76mm shermans, Dozer Shermans (75mm or 105mm), T-34-85's, Comets, Churchills, IS-2's, ISU-152s, medium tanks really well supported by AT guns or AT infantry, Pershings, KV-1/2s, SU-85s? |
Straight up, why not make it more like the pak howi and mortar pit? Shorter auto fire range but long barrage? If you want to auto fire you are closer to danger, if you don't want to risk it you can use it as fire support like a mini howitzer.
Already works that way.
60 range on the autofire, 80 on the barrage. Autofire is AT gun range. |
|
Esxile, dude. Dude
The Sherman has these things called High Explosive Rounds, right? And when it uses them, its AI is absolutely wild. It wrecks infantry in a way the PzIVs and Cromwell can only dream of.
Buy a .50 cal to pick off the stragglers who try flee from your mighty boom shells.
The M4A3 absolutely does not need any buffs, it does just fine as an AI machine with a decent AT detertant and light tank bullying.
USFs medium tank response is perfectly adequately covered with their AT gun, zooks (bad but a deterrant) and snares. |
Your theory is not support by numbers:
Scott has less scatter on barrage and does more damage.
It also does not cost MU.
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. |
I see, but why not compare then with mentioned above StuG III E, or SU-76M (light, fast, no armor and possibility to shot over obstacles)? They are much closer to Scott in stats and their role on the field, instead of Brumbar, which looks like "Lets make vice versa Scott in any stat we can".
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. |
Maybe i am dumb a lot, but what kind of thing is head-on comparison of Heavy Assault Gun and Light Mobile Howitzer?
It's symptomatic of the difficulty in finding any sort of comparison to the Scott, becauze it has no direct equivalent in any other army.
It's half way between a MHT and an Assault gun, IMO. Unlike MHT it can fire directly and has a HP pool. Unlike the Assault Gun it has a decent range but less HP and no armour.
Brum still feels like the closest comparison, as a slow fat siblibg. Both can fire over shot blockers and come with a barrage of some sort? It's sure as hell not perfect, but its as close as you get.
I don't see any way you can up the micro demands of the Scott and still have it be useful, though. Autofire already leaves you in AT gun range. Barrages don't track. It can't wipe like the StuG E or Brum.
Each scott us basically the cost of two Mortar HT and I stand by my compatison tbat the pair of HTs will cause much more damage. For the extra fuel some HP, smoke and a direct fire ability seems lik a fine offset. Turn it into a micro tac to make it hit anything and it'll just immediately get shelved for aforementioned MHTs. |
Pretty much this. On paper, the scott is reasonably fine; but in practice it basically hard-counters OST.
If you're getting pushed by 3-4 rifle squads, you pretty much need to rely on your support weapons and LMG grens to counter them; but all of those units NEED to stay still in order to be effective... which means they're destroyed by the scotts; and if you move, the rifle squads close in and destroy your units. Sure, you can try to dive the scotts with Mediums/TDs, but that means hoping you don't get hit by bazookas/AT/M36s. It's just not a reliable counter.
All the scott needs is an increase on 'micro-tax'. Reducing the auto-fire range to half (or something like that) of what it is now, and the unit is basically fixed. It's still just as strong as before, but requires micro for it to be effective. That would also bring it in line with all the other units of that roll (STUG-E, Brumbar), which basically require manual attack-ground commands to work.
Nothing that a pair of Mortar HTs wouldn't achieve at half the price, at an earlier time in the game, only with access to WP for bonus machine gun hate.
The main gun on the scott does not outrange AT guns on autofire and the shell arc firing over obstacles gives the rounds plenty of travel time before they land. For 70 fuel invested over a Pack Howitzer (which brings considerably more hurt) it gets to be as durable as a Greyhound.
If a pair of them are laying into you thats 140fuel in the pot with zero AT potential. You should be able to work your counters appropriately.
The scott is good but it's also major tech, has a modest AoE and the barrage is only a polite request for a unit to move. Its AI falls well brlow the StuG E and Brum, it can't bounce anything, and anybody telling you to circle AT guns with it is a German trying to sabotage the allied war effort. |
|
If it was made any worse there would be no reason to build one. You'd be better off with a mortar, or a mortar HT.
It's a budget Brummbar that dies to a stiff breeze. For 70 fuel it should - and does - preform acceptably against infantry. |
|
The sherman is fine. The M4A3 isn't going to solo panthers and that's not a problen. The 76, E8 and TDs are there for that.
If you honestly think nobody builds StuGs or the StealthPanzer you need to play more. |
United Kingdom
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
