Profile of Hannibal

So, I have been listing a laundry list of advantages and not just the brace. How the hell are only able to focus on the brace. What about the fact that I pointed out it has SAME DAMAGE, SAME PEN, 900HP vs 640 HP ,NOT BEING DOCTRINAL, BEING AVAILABLE EARLIER. How can you not notice this????? Do you have some kind of tunnel vision. I saying you are fine with all of this.
I'm pretty sure your pak 43 getting killed by infantry in mere moments while the enemy can push armor along side the infantry with impunity is much better not having to even bother protecting the damn thing vs infantry + armour pushes at all

Right so you think this is stupid but the actual solution which is too increase the armor pen of gamons to makes sure that it pens and fire arms do not and then Having to increase the Armor and Pen of all vehicles so that Gamons can't blow apart tanks but Tank v Tanks combat stays the same is NOT STUPID.

I retried to have a decent discussion, but if your only way to discuss Ostheer bunkers is by either lying about stuff I never wrote or even indirectly suggested (such as the increase of gammon bomb penetration and current brace being okay) or constantly straw-manning into completely different topics (PaK43, brace) then I'll cut it at that and rather save my time.


This is about bunkers (and by extension fighting positions) and the question if they should have enough armor to bounce grenades, as well as if a population cost should be applied. My point were and still are clear: Grenades should always deal at least some damage and they should have a small POP cost.

It'd be better off having a role more distinct to that of the Brummbar, honestly. OKW would likely love to have the STUG-E, but it's really surplus to requirement for OST in most cases.

I agree to that. The StuG E would probably be fantastic in the hands of OKW, OST already has a lot of AI options both stock and doctrinally and even at similar timing.

The argument of it being cheap doesn't really justify it imo, especially because turretless tanks are always cheaper than turretted counterparts, and for much less you can obtain actually good turretted light vehicles with comparable if not sometimes better dps against infantry and a nice mobility.
For the same price, you can also get a nice M8 scott gun carrier that can actually deal better with team weapons and moving infantry, while having a turret and mobility, and their armor difference is irrelevant until the Stug 3 E reaches vet 2 and gets a bonus, but even then 180 armor will rarely make the Stug E bounce anything but base PIATS and Bazooka.

Not only that, but the small AOE and the slow projectile make manual aiming really inconsistent without very high accuracy.

I absolutely find the Command Panzer IV a much better AI option on top of being turretted, mobile, able to deal with light vehicles and having the Command aura. And it even got a smoke shell that can support against team weapons, and that's 100 fuel, so 25 more

I agree to most of this as well, although I find it harder to compare the StuG E with the Scott. They function similarly, but in the end the Scott has to make up for the lack of rocket artillery. But that's another topic.

What the StuG lacks (or lacked? Let's see what the patch changes bring) overall is a place: Both in the OST line up as well as in different game modes. The 50 range are a decent difference to the Brumm: Support gun instead of breacher. But I think it fell short on the game modes: Casemates are barely used in 1v1, and for larger modes it is still somewhat fragile. It had a window of maybe 2v2 but that might not have been enough.

Let's see though what the commander changes will do. The smoke is another decent ability to differentiate it from the Brummbar. Not so sure about the pintle though, but time will tell.
We have to remember the StuG E is only 8 POP when discussing the approximate power level. That puts it roughly between Luchs and Ostwind in terms of performance.

I think Paths are fine.
They're fairly weak out of the gate, and to be really effective they need a Rifle squad in front of them as a stopper as well as a damage dealer so they can get their 40% HP snipes.

I am not quite sure why OP does a comparison when JLI have a clear advantage in direct combat, yet the combat performance is not part of the comparison. Of course Paths are going to look very good.

What I can agree on though is to increase the CD. They're not meant to replace Rifles anyway, so there is no reason for them to have a very short CD.

Yes, It's irrelevant. When allied structures that cost same and have laundry list of advantages over the axis ones for the same cost its fine non issue, but a axis structure a slight avantage and can't be cheesed by a 35 muni ability that's is somehow a problem. What a fucking hippocryte.

Nonsense. There is nothing "cheesy" about throwing a nade into a bunker, and if you seriously want to vent some alleged huge Allied bias on a tiny and very specific discussion about weird/unintuitive in-game behaviour, then go ahead.
But don't blame others if in the end you make your own argument look bad by throwing around accusations and insults.

One always seems a bit underwhelming. Two working together seem a lot better, but that could be said for most units in COH2. I'm not sure why anyone would compare it to a Brummbar that costs twice as much fuel.

Because functionally they are the same unit type. They even work exactly the same.

I must say I can see OP's point about having to put a similar amount of micro into it compared to the Brummbar while getting much less out of it. On the other hand it is super cheap.
No real opiniom on it, but I have to say I have rarely seen it in game.