|
Why does bulgakov say that many people that are vastly superior to katitof said that the scott is op? While really its just him and corsin saying that scotts are op both of which are very mediocre players at best while katitof is actually a decent player. Also bulgakov please stop diagnosing mental problems for people who disagree with you. Thats just pathetic. |
No, just suggesting there are som allied units that too strong and spoil gameplay just as there are axis units that are too strong and spoil gameplay and allied units that are too weak too.
You write with such anger, I wonder what it is in your life that hurts you so much that you have to splurge out your rage here. it's a discussion about a game, not a political fight for life or death. You can disagree with people, explain why. There's no need to let out all that teenage angst against other forum users.
In reply to your points:
1) same range perhaps but can fire indirectly from behind shot-blockers, thereby nullifying the pak's range.
2) dies to two hits but can be kept behind the front and far away from AT with a meatshield of infantry blobcking the path. Approaching with AT guns is very dangerous.
3) Same AoE as Sherman perhaps but the Sherman is a direct fire weapon with shorter range, therefore has a big AoE to compensate. The Scott has no such disadvantage.
Still, as I've already said I think the issue with the Scott might go away if squad-clumping were fixed.
dies to two hits but can be kept behind the front and far away from AT with a meatshield of infantry blobcking the path. Approaching with AT guns is very dangerous.
same range perhaps but can fire indirectly from behind shot-blockers, thereby nullifying the pak's range.
These statements completely contradict each other. So now the firing behind shot blockers is the problem? Like seriously, if theres infantry blocking its path, then you can use a tank and now there isint any infantry blocking it's path? The same arguement can be said for the sherman, or any tank in the game.
I fail to see the problem here. You claim oneshots are the problem yet it doesn't oneshot nearly as often as people claim it to.
And like i said, sherman is almost always the better choice over the m8 scott. The m8 scott only purpose is when the OKW player is spamming out like a ridiciluos amounts of volksgrenadiers, and theres so many panzershrecks around that approaching with shermans is not an option anymore. And with the jagdpanzer IV meta the scott is extremelly difficult to use properly.
Vs ostheer it's pretty much always better to go shermans.
Why am i angry? I'm not angry at all  |
Wow, really? You're gonna quote Burts to disprove what I was saying? Find me a less biased and more skilled player and quote them. And they have to disagree with what I said. Not with something similar to what I said.
Seriously, Burts... And his posts was full of "fuck" and "shit". Quote Katitof too next time, show me how wrong I am.
My points:
With current squad-bunching it is spoiling the game. Perhaps if just this was changed it would become a balanced unit. I do not believe the Scott makes the US OP. it's just an un-fun unit to face.
The Scott is not micro-intensive.
It auto-fires from long range and is armoured.
It can outrun flanking infantry.
It can outrun and out-shoot AT guns.
Flanking with a tank is extremely risky vs a faction with non-doc tank-disabling mines.
See if you can find several good players who disagree with these points. If you can find someone who can express his ideas without expletives, that'd be great.
Alright, i will give you my reasons.
1) Same range as an at gun such as the pak 40
2) Dies it 2 anti tank gun shots or 3 panzershreck shots
3) same AOE as the sherman
And the reason you "dont see good players" explaining here anything, is because when they say something, they instantly get trolled by people who have no clue.
Flanking is extremelly risky vs a faction with non doctrinally disabling mines? which faction are we talking about here? Cause it seems like every single faction has non doctrinal mines that cripple.
And i honestly have zero clue what do you mean by "un-fun to play againts", the few things that actually work are deemed "un-fun to play againts"? Cause that what most of your post seems to be about. Bitching about the allied units that are good.
|
|
People that say the m8 scott doesn't require micro have completely zero clue what they are saying.
Yes it does require micro, and alot more than the sherman considering it has to constantly kite shreck blobs because it does miss quite oftne. It does to 2 PaK shots, and pak-43 oneshots it.
It has the same range as the pak-40, and for that reason i fail to see why you should move the pak-40 close to the scott.
Like seriously, proper AT gun micro counters this thing very well.
Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what the fuck they are talking about. And people need to stop blabbing this bullshit of it oneshotting squads. It has the same AOE as the M4 sherman HE rounds. |
Youre obsessing with the build orders and unit speeds, that aint what im complaining about. even in late game if theres 2 tigers 3 jacksons and a scott on the field... it shouldn't be able to 1 shot all infantry.
(In this case he had 3 AT guns, captian, 4 rifle squads 1 jackson and 1 scot when the 1 shotting all my infantry happend)....
P4 aint gonna do much vs that,
But the scenario is irrelevent... any decent player is gonna support the scott, which is fine, but not when its covered in AT and is then able to 1 shot your infantry.
Like these guys said its mainly the blobing thats the issue (where all 4 men of a squad clump together), but since thats the case it needs a scatter nerf. Similar stuff happens with the Stug E, but that doesnt have a turret or as much range...
If Brummbars had the same range of a Scott and were 1 shotting 6 man squads all over the place, and my defense was "you should have a jackson by the time they have a Brummbar l2p" that wouldn't mean the Brummbar with 70 range is balanced would it?
Use your fkin head.
Yeah was double USF.... thats how he was killing my paks with 120mm mortars? AS i stated in one of the first posts...
l2read
I wasn't reffering to you specifically. And despite your claims, the M8 scott doesn't oneshot nearly as often as you claim it to. It does oneshot sometimes, but it's not very often for it oneshot.
And by the way, the M8 scott has 60 range, same as a PaK 40.
And yes a brumbaar with 70 range oneshotting squads would be overpowered, considering that it only costs 2 times as much as one m8 scott, has over four times the armor, and over three times health. And faces significantly weaker AT as well. Not to mention that the brumbaar IS also quite effective againts tanks due to it having decent penetration (enough to pen most USF vehicles fairly reliably except E8/Dozer, while also having a stun chance of 33%! for every shot it lands.
Oh, and by the way, it's radius of kill AOE is 1.35, just 0.05 more than a regural sherman HE round. So really it's just a sherman with 60 range with no anti tank capabilities. So i guess you want people to make more shermans
You just got unlucky.
Oh and for your information, a brumbaar has a kill radius of 1.975 meters.
EDIT : M8 scott has 0.025 more AOE than HE sherman rounds. |
no it's fine. Its useless in 1v1 since shermans are pretty much 100% the better choice, and it is the m8 scott is the only good USF counter to mass axis blobs where shermans have the survivability of an ostheer sniper in the middle of a rifle blob.
Also if you lose to double USF you need to l2p |
|
1. CAS
2. Mechanized assault
3.Lightning war |
Wat? The Jackson is not an offensive unit. I mean, I am not gonna pretend I never lost one to a Pak (wall) or anything, but thats mostly miscmicro etc. Why would you run a Jackson into a Pak position? Let his armour expose himself (which he will have to do eventually given how the US vs OH meta tends to play out), put in your shots, collect, your vet. Eventually, you get insane burst damage.
As for CAS, with its recent proliferation of CAS I got to play against it alot, and its friggin annoying alright and necessitates a much more careful approach for the USF player, but I think foregoing armour completely weakens the doctrine in the lategame. Might work on some maps where you can camp a central location, on others, where you need to harass in the periphery, not so much, simply because you will bleed manpower hard against US armour if you have no mobility of your own and you will run the risk of getting your squads wiped left right and center against good Sherman/Bulldozer/Scott play. Not to mention that you can still easily lose the game late if your Paks get taken out as your army composition is still fragile without armour, and that can easily happen simply to RNG, ie. 240 mm, WP plus charge, Priest, what have you, or simply being caught out of position by US inf.
Addendum, outside of CAS, the Tiger does just about everything the PIV does better and more cost efficiently in the long run, especially if you throw in the StuG-E...
I'm just speaking from experience here honestly. If you play againts a good ostheer player that spams CAS LMGs and PaKs well, it becomes an uphill battle for USF on most maps...
It's true that if you lose tanks to pak-40s it is usually due to some kind of mis micro. But it's extremelly easy to mess up since all it takes is one grenadier faust and your sherman evaporates pretty much instantly to the pak-40s. And then again, losing a pak-40 to a sherman or whatever also is usually due to mis micro... And dont even try flanking with infantry, the pin strafe is just going to own you...
And of course the tiger does everything better than the PIV + stug E, that's why its the meta |
At even a semi-decent level of micro a PIV will rarely even get a shot in vs a Jackson, which has a 20 (!) range advantage and obviously you don't lead with a Jackson.
Provided your opponent is decent and backstops his PIV with Paks/Grens, you won't easily kill it either, but all the PIV will do is feed vet to the Jackson until it gets HVAP where it still does 240 damage on top of increased penetration, and then OH will have s serious problem keeping anything short of Tiger/Elefant alive.
Sorry man, but this is simply not true. Like i said , ostheer does not actually need any tanks vs USF. The tanks just make it easier , or in some cases harder , for them to win versus USF.
The jackson does have the range advantage, but all it takes is 3 pak shots to take it down. 2 pak shots + PIV blitz will reliably take any jackson down. Of course, the backbone of your ostheer army should never be PIVs. In the end, PIVs only serve as a support role to chase down tanks and scare away infantry. Pak-40s and LMG grens do the job.
The only major problem with the PIV againts USF is rifle company flamer spam, which in that case going for a PIV is indeed a bad choice. I guess vs armor company the panzer IV isint too great either.
In the end going for any tank is viable againts USF as long as you have decent map control and he hasn't completely overwhelmed you in the early game, which of course is quite easy to do as USF. The reason for this is because tanks for ostheer againts USF are support units, not the backbone.
Now of course, going for a brumbaar or a panther in 1v1 is still usually a fairly crap choice, because the tech costs end up slowing you down significantly. |
|
Yes it is still in effect. |
0
Cheese
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
