Profile of Serrith

It not incorrect.

Assault gun where not tank and did not move in close with troops. The fired from a distance where the lack of turret did not make difference. The fire they provided could be direct or indirect.

Stug-E had a gun with high elevation and could fire both direct and indirect fire.

When German where low on tanks and tried to use assault gun as tanks they vehicle failed in the role.

"Assault guns" provide support fire for the infatry to "assault" rather then do the assault themselves.

You are confusing vehicle use. Assault guns were used to give INFANTRY mobile howitzers and bunker busters. This is a very different role than "tanks". In the Assault gun role, the vehicle moves up with the infantry to blow up bunkers and clear soft targets in a direct fire role. But this is different than other forms of self propelled artillery such as the priest, hummel and sexton which were almost exclusively indirect fire units.

Historically, the concept of assault guns was very similar to that of the infantry tank, as both were combat vehicles intended to accompany infantry formations into battle.

Tanks were used as a mobile and independent force not meant to operate with foot infantry. You are correct when you say that assault guns pressed into the tank role were not very effective at this, but you do not seem to understand the actual role of assault guns.


I know it seems intuitive that assault guns would fire from a long distance, but the reality is that operationally they were used in close support with infantry particularly when on the offensive.


Please read up on the actual operational use of the early stug variants and the soviet assault guns like the isu and su76 instead of relying on your intuition.


As a light assault gun, the SU-76M was well-regarded by Soviet infantrymen (in contrast with their own crews). It had more powerful weapons than any previous light tank for close support and communication between infantry and the SU-76M crew was simple due to the open crew compartment.

The important thing to take away is that it was used for CLOSE support, and mouth to mouth communication was used with infantry.

cant really take away the 6 man crew due to the unfixable deathloop unfortunately. not without dramatic changes that help offset that. one could maybe try 5 men and giving it a better rec acc, kinda the inverse of what they are trying with AT guns, but that might make things worse in the other direction

I know the 50cal is statwise better, but it too deathloops and it only has 4 men. Should the 50 recieve extra models? 50cal models have the same RA as maxim(machine gun) models.

As for the reinforce cost reduction, I think a reduction could be in order though I am not certain reducing it all the way down to 15 is good. A middle ground of 17-18 is a start.

Ask yourself why you are comparing SOV pgren counters to OST openers that don't even include a single pgren in the cost.

The height of intellectual dishonesty.

"How does one get a sniper AND a clown car AND outnumber ost in squads by the time Pgrens hit the field?"

This was what I said, to which you replied that I erroneously included both the sniper and clown car, then listed a weird build.

I did not include pgrens because it was a question of timing not just raw cost. How much does ost need to expend in a typical build before getting your first pgren.

I did not mention map control in my post so I'm not sure why you would bring it up. I listed actual relevant builds. Why are you dismissing them?

I dunno, pretty ironic calling me dishonest.

Not all commander are viable in 1v1 (see Elephant)

The suggestion address the OP's problem which is having to go infatry commander to have TOT.

Other players would have the choice of going priest or TOT to counter Lefh.

No reason to make the commander less viable in 1v1 just to make it less useful in 4v4 unless its too strong which I don't think it is. In 4v4 the key tool in its roster is the priest, just like the key tool in tactical support is the calliope. If you remove ToT and put it in a different commander, people are still going to take infantry for the priest because why do you need an off map when you have a soviet ally with Mechanized Support tactics? Or Terror?


No. He was complaining about having to get the PRIEST commander to counter the Lefh. If the only thing he needed was an off map artillery strike he could have taken armor for the 240mm strike or mechanized for the 155mm or just have an ally with IL2 bombs etc.


At the beginning of his post he says "arty is essential", and given the units he's brought up I don't think he means off maps.

I&R and Major are depended on mode that is correct. One can pull them off in 2vs.

Main point here is that TOT should not be in the same commander as priest.

Sure but just because they are "stronger" in particular game modes do not make them viable counters to the unit in question in any mode. You may as well have listed "diving it with a tank destroyer" or "using a sniper on it". Its not off map artillery that counters howitzers, its off map artillery without range constraints.
And to avoid needless pedantry, I know you did not use the word "counter" but if you are going to list options to combat something, usually people list what they believe to be VIABLE options(counters).

As for ToT and priest being in the same commander, I dont see this as an issue. The issue is the format. In 3v3 and 4v4 it is inherently strong to have mobile arty like the priest and the off map arty just makes it stronger. In 1v1 you go infantry primarily for the riflemen field defenses and the 1919 lmgs but the off map helps keep it viable later on.
On the "thematic" side of things, I do think such an artillery heavy focus is odd in an "Infantry" commander but I dont think the commander is broken. It just brings things to the table that USF(or really any faction) needs in the larger game modes hence making it a must have in your USF lineup.