Move STUG to OST t2 with decreased cost and stats, increase range. Call-it STUG-E with 2 types of shells (like USF sherman) HEAT and HE. Problem solved. OST got 60-range "sometimes hit to dirt instead tank" light TD with some AI. And when t-34 or cromwell will arrive we will see the same problem as with SU-76, "new" stug counter LV, but when something bigger comes, it sucks.
Nerf stug penetration to 140-160-180
Nerf StuG reload to 6-7 seconds
Keep range at 50
Keep armor and hp
Reduce fuel to 75
Keep at tier 3
It will see use. |
How much?
There are usually two situations where the su76 sees use. Either if the soviet player is really far behind on fuel and the enemy gets a tank, or if the soviet player is saving for a callin like the IS2 or ISU152.
That isnt to say it doesnt get used but the problem really isnt the su76 performance. Stat wise for cost the su76 is honestly superior for zoning out mediums over a puma due to the longer range. Most of the time the su76 is overkill for when it's available. A T70 handles a 222, a flamehalftrack, or a luchs just fine- you dont need the su76 for it and the puma lacks good anti infantry-if you dont kill it, the puma wont punish you. By the time vehicles that the su76 is designed for are available, the soviet player should have enough fuel for tier 4 and potentially a medium tank of his own.
Believe me, ost players would love a 60 range light TD with similar stats to su76. |
I also want rework of SU-76 because in current position you must build 2 su-76 (150 fuel! more than t-3485 or kv-1) to have hardcounter to 1 P4, while OST could build 1 stug and hardcounter your medium. You saw digits. And i also didn't mention that every new armor after T-70 will delay your own t4 (or heavy) and you will be in very hard position, when axis armor will start push if you build 1 su-76 after t-70.
Doesnt the firefly cost 155 fuel?
A jackson is only 10 fuel less than 2 su76 as well and lacks any Anti infantry.
The su76 doesnt hardcounter the panzer 4 any more than a puma hard counters a t34. What they both do is zone out the enemy mediums and provide supporting damage output although they do it differently. This is what the StuG should do as well imo. |
i dont get why people think the stug isnt viable... it is a cost efficient counter to allied heavy TDs and mediums in a way the panzer 4 cannot hope to match... sure it lacks the AI of the P4 but ostheer now has
1. the newly buffed ostwind
2. the good ole brummbar
3. the panzerwerfer
as dedicated AI options
The StuG is a counter to allied TDs as an m10 is a counter to the JP4- it isnt. The StuG is a counter to allied medium tank spam, but due to the lack of flexibility of the unit, it is just more cost effective to save for a panzer 4 usually.
The StuG fits a similar cost niche as the panzer 4 but doesnt offer as much synergy with different compositions. Hence my suggestion to nerf the penetration and rate of fire of the StuG in exchange for a reduced fuel cost as well. |
Please let me know if I have missed anything impoartant. And, most importantly, tell me a reason that I will pick an abandon 6 pdr over a pak 40 as the other factions.
You wouldn't, just as you wouldnt pick a leig over a pack howitzer if they were laying side by side. |
50 cal:
The 50 cal has decent stats (not sure about accuracy though, I will assume it's similar) and I never doubted that. Also the DhsK has the best MG stats in the game, even before the buff. Still it was not build due to bad arch. The most important thing is that the MG42 will usually suppress in one single burst. More suppression than that is initially not needed for area controll. But what is needed is a bigger arch to also suppress the squad that tries to flank.
Prior to the latest nerf, the DSHK was built a ton. It was the main reason land lease was picked so much even after the 76mm shermans were locked behind tech.
Part of that was the fact the maxim was/is underperforming and part of it was how ridiculous the DSHK was despite it's even worse arc.
The extra arc on the mg42 is useful no doubt if you plan to just stick it in a corner and leave it there, but the faster setup time and at least on par suppression of the 50 cal means it is a far more flexible weapon both on offense and on defense. The two drawbacks to it are the tech requirements and the deathloop.
If there was an mg42 and a 50cal next to each other on the ground, which would I pick... I'd sac my squad and take both.
-on a serious note it's more situation dependent mg42 is only better if its camping a spot covering as many points of entry as possible. Since my multitasking and unit management are crap that can be useful to me but less so in the hands of someone more capable. |
|
Rifles have decent dps at all ranges which I guess is why they are classified as being mid range. They arent EXCEPTIONAL for cost at any range but are good at most. Part of the issue with them has to do with how similar they are to officers in combat capability which results in redundancy.
For straight buffs to rifles alone maybe cut construction cost to 270 and reinforcement to 27.
I don't think volks are over performing at all. |
About Su-76 - yes you can, but how much you see soviets who bought instead t-70 su-76 (i even ask you how much you even saw su-76) as first LV? And don't forget that su-76 can't be great enemy to your medium. It still needs 6 shots to kill it without vet and 5 with vet, if they could penetrate of course. It hardcounter only to other LV (puma, p2, halftrucks). Regular zis will be much more danger for your medium (adn could be builde much more earlier).
About Puma - yes you can, current OKW meta p2+puma to counter t-70 and save field pressure. But it still LV.
About Stug - Only if you make from stug LV like these 2. I think you agree that LV and regular TD are quite different things? From one side - cheap cost, but low damage, low penetration, lack of health. From other side - more higher cost (15 fuel IMHO, it not so much in comparsion with su-76), but more armor, more health, more damage and penteration.
Well proposed changes include nerf to stug rate of fire and nerf to stug penetration. This would mean stug has less penetration than su76 and less damage per second, but more single shot damage and more durable. Maybe you did not read my proposed change except for fuel cost reduction. |
Without strengths? You could got it early than any ally medium arrive on field. For more early AT you could use shrecks, or ATG.
You can get the puma out earlier than any axis medium, you can also get the su76 earlier than any axis medium. At least the stug wouldn't come THAT much earlier than the standard timing for a medium tank.
The strength of the stug with my proposed changes would be you still get the same advantages it currently has over infantry based AT- not being vulnerable to small arms and more mobile, and you can buy it as a "supplement" rather then having to spend 3/4's of a medium tank. It still outranges standard mediums and has adequate penetration for its cost, as well as its durability. It won't scale if the enemy fields super heavies but then it would be 70-75 fuel, no vehicle in that price range does. |
...
Against okw I could buy your argument but ostheer you see a lot of tier 3 play, and Panthers are something you get much later down the road when players have excess fuel to throw around.
The problem with the StuG is role, and right now it's a weird cross between the su76 and the puma without the strengths of either(long range, turret, low cost, early tech). By reducing its potency but also reducing its cost you let it fill the cost niche that the ostheer doesn't have atm- the 50-80 fuel range. |
United States
λυκεπραισεστονε
Serrith
Conscript reporting
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
