Profile of Imagelessbean

IRL the Stug E was similar to the SU76, and the Stug G was the direct counterpart. In the game though since the SU76 struggles with armor it should be similar to Stug E.

Even though it is only in one doc (now) I would still like to see a free barrage ability added to the Stug E as I mentioned.

And yes indeed the name means assault gun.

god has spoken yet again... nuff said

Last time I checked VonIvan is not head of balancing team. I don't think the Soviet mortar is not balanced, I think the ability is too cheap for its effect.

i think they want that the minefield to be used in quantity to defend against a large infantry attack, thats why its so big and expensive

Unfortunately since it is so large and big it can never do that. I cannot afford to float 80 munitions against infantry blobs. I need those munitions for other things. Placement of a single plot is also extremely awkward right now.

Precision strike is too good (I think in all of its forms). Just allows vet 1 soviet arty to insta kill some unsuspecting unit, but is really bad for mortars.

Side note, can German arty actually get a useful vet 1 ability. It literally does nothing right now as far as I can tell.

I suppose you are referring to T70 and T34?

The former does not require a tank counter and the latter requires just one PzIV. Heck, sometimes it dies to an Ostwind too.

In most cases shreked Pgrens are the best counter.



The offensive impact of mud is exactly to attack with infantry. Not with vehicles.

You could argue that there is too much mud to make it a feature with strategic impact.

But which parts of the mud would you remove? If you just removed everything from the roads, it'll be back to the usual armor rush tactics.

Soviets have a lot more than T34 and T70 as AI tanks, those just come out early. Many have the potential to wipe whole squads in one shot. I cannot afford to risk infantry under those conditions. If you don't want to see so much Ost armor make wiping rare and I can use more infantry.

I am not going to debate T34 here, but suffice it to say if you lost it to an Ostwind, you are doing it wrong.

Mud does not let me attack with infantry either. They move slowly through the mud making retreat less viable, and exposing them to fire for longer. All mud does is just stops use of those areas. It is even more obscene because on the one side there is a house that overlooks the fuel point encouraging campy play.

I would remove tons of mud from Hill 331, not least of which the giant mud pits just outside of each base. Why are they there?

Not sure what the usual "armor rush tactics" are? Are you referring to the use of armor to deal crippling blows while moving quickly. That is what a tank does, that is how they work. Tanks live or die by speedy hits. If you want less "armor rush tactics" then we need to make assault guns better. These move forward with infantry punishing obstacles.

I really dislike the complaint about tanks moving quickly and hitting targets hard anyway. Many Ost tanks are designed to do this, and at least some of the Soviet tanks. It is a legitimate strategy which is easily defeated by mines, at grenades, button, recon flights (to let you know where armor is massing), and ram.

If you are tired of tank battles, then you need to buff all infantry, and eliminate or almost eliminate wipes from single shots.

I have now played this map 4 times, and each time both sides eventually just stall out and fire artillery back and forth until one side wins. All those games were really boring. Mud is boring, it only serves to limit movement when applied everywhere. In small amounts it might be interesting.