COH: Europe In Ruins

What affect does the Coaxial MG Buff actually have? Does that mean it's now a real MG or is it the same shit one, with slightly more damage...shit x2 is just twice as much shit.

My other question, instead of a blanket buff, why not change it to Advanced Munitions or something similar. That way it can be equally useful on the different platforms it is supposed to support.

Basically, why is this a good T4 choice.

It's basically Hvap?

What am I saying... it IS hvap, hvap is bad all of a sudden? Imagine how good this will be for the P4's.

The mg is just an extra.

100 % suppression. so you can pin with tiger infantry now  :-X

Scratch that, it's actually BETTER than hvap.

Not only are the %'s slighty higher, but you have a double chance to do ALL crits (5%'s go to 10, 10's to 20 and so on) instead of just the rear engine one.

Panzer aces is in the same tree to, that combination might actually prove to be way to dangerous to leave it that way.

(Oh, doesn't work with some reward units yet)

does tiger coax suppress infantry now?

Keep in mind axis tanks will cap out on max penetration faster than allied units since allied units have weaker armor. So more of that % is actually wasted.

Not the case on all axis units, but the heavier ones for sure.

Except HVAP helps the American 76mm and TD's kill my heavy Armor, Wehr has no TD's in the first place other than the Panther.

It's also a doctrine that only helps the medium armor with half of it's bonus, unless fighting something like a Pershing.

It's a poor cookie cutter design element.

Would two tigers suppress infantry before if they fired together? No, it's prolly not going to do that, it might help but it's highly unlikely it can do it on it's own.


While that is true PQ, a HEAT Heat heavy will skew a Panther/Tiger vs Pershing engagement quite hard in the same way that an HVAP has done before, even if that is a bit sidetracked. It's arguably a buff intended for use with Medium tanks more than the heavies, I'm not going to dispute that, but there are other doctrines to go (dual t3) if that is what you're going for, right?

At the very least, we finally have a medium tank focused wher T4, not sure we've had one of those when I've been around so I'm happy with it.




What do you mean "Only half it's bonus"? The Coax buff is a very MINOR part of the buff and it's only been applied to the AI tanks that have coax mg's.

says coax gets 100% suppression, but does not suppress at all. NICE :P

+100% supression...

Meaning double of what it had before

Shit * 2 = Very Mediocre

how about we say its "twice as effective", instead of 100% suppression, because 100% suppression is imo suppression.

Half of it's bonus, either damage or pen is useful, most don't really benefit from both, I don't even count the MG buff....

Think about how often that +Pen comes in with Tiger, Panther, etc vs the majority of enemy armored units.

Basically, the T4 is bleh for the iconic Blitz units of Tiger and STuH, mildly useful on the Panther (maybe, because it's purpose is hunting tanks and it has the range to back it up), a nice buff to STuGs, who are still easy meat for most anything even with the buff due to other reasons (herp derp, design of  Allied doctrines negates it's armor target table and makes it a weak unit) and taking it means you are focusing on using a few units that are only really effected by 1 1/2 tier choices.

Double crit change might be nice in a very few cases.

So what we have is a doctrine that only really supports 2 units, the P4, and the STuG...

That's not 100% right. +100% Suppression means that the suppression threshold of the target unit is reached in half the time. But you're right that
some infantry units with low suppression threshold values (like Engineers) will get suppressed in instant speed.

I'm at work right now, someone pull the suppression value for the Coaxial MG...it doesn't do anything normally, it still won't do anything.

It's a doctrinal T4, at least make it a decent secondary buff and make it a basic LMG...

Ignore AmPm, he just likes to complain. HEAT rounds has always been an attractive option.

HEAT rounds was attractive previously as a dual t3 because you got more supporting doctrinal bonuses from other Tiers.

Or are you saying that it was broken as a T3 prior, or that the sudden increase in Coaxial MG and the minor crit bonus makes it now a T4.

have to agree, compared to other doctrines t4s heat rounds is kind of shit, henschel design in terror for example will always be a better choice if you want good tanks.

What's up Marlboro! You still in Japan or back in the States?

And Brn, taken out of context, it's not a bad T4. When compared to the usefullness and increased resource efficiency of most other T4's however, it is a terrible choice.

Yeah, people took heat rounds and panzer aces, you'll still get a better heat rouns + panzer aces.

And it never was a strong comptetive doctrine.

The best is still Elite armor Grens + pop buff + other bonuses, followed by LW.

It's a fun doctrine choice to go HEAT, but it's not a good doctrine choice.

Actually, right now, middle T4 and T3 are far an away the best.

APCR and HVAP are good because you can use them with tank destroyers but WM don't have any tank destroyers. Stug and PzIV are terrible against tanks and if you want to have heavier tanks you're better off picking one of the other trees.

I've tried using HEAT rounds with the Stug but it's just not a good tank. It's slow, no turret, low health, weak armor, low damage. Most of the time it will die to artillery or AT guns because it's too slow to get out of the way. If engaging an M10 it will lose even if they fight front to front.

The M10 has speed, what strength the Stug have? Isn't the concept that the Stug is supposed to be slow, no turret and low health but have strong front armor so that you can take it out if you flank it but it's a viable unit if you can cover it? Because currently it makes no difference, all the tanks can penetrate it's front armor anyways. It's much cheaper than other tanks? but the M10 is only 45 FU more.

There is no way you can build a dedicated Stug HEAT rounds company the same way you can build a powerful M10, M13 HVAP or Marder APCR company.

i once said, give the stug hetzer range. It has a TD role, but cant fullfill it with the current range. m10 has higher, hellcat has higher, hetzer has higher and also ff has higher range than the stug.

STuG should have 45 range, it's role has changed and it cannot fulfill it's role of Assault Gun when it loses to everything. Also, by this period in the war, STuGs were the PRIMARY tank destroyers of the Wehrmacht.

Anyway, on topic and away from STuG balance.

It's a poor doctrine choice compared the others in it's doctrine, and results in a weak company compared to APCR and HVAP.

Stug dont lose to everything. Also stug has some cool modifiers, hetze dont.

Aha. K.

 Longer range Stug is a good idea...

Artillery deals high amounts of damage to the Stug because of it's high chance to penetrate the armor, with other tanks it would bounce off or you'd have time to move.

I would prefer the STuG be at 220 or so FU and have a 45 range...

I believe the artillery deals in splash. most artillery( from what i see) bounces if it gets a direct hit on a tank.

( im pretty sure)


And i rarely see stugs die to arty 1 killer is probably Airborne or the common ATG. but i have sometimes seen the odd wild atg appear and take a stug out.

Splash and direct hits can have differing penetration modifiers, and I believe splash has bleed damage.

It has the same speed as a P4, along with better armour. Seriously, if you're losing your StuGs to arty - it's not the StuG's fault.


That being said I've always been a fan of giving the StuG 45 range. Would just bring it in line with the other TDs.

You earn 1 out of 5 points.

Slow: No. It has top speed 5 (On par with PzIV, .2 below Panther) and has accel of 2.5 (On par with Panther, PzIV has 1.2). It's turn rate is 5 below the PzIV and Panther (30 vs their 35) but is still good enough to track anything but point blank circle-jerking TD's/LV's, in which case you should be reverse turning like it's hard or planning ahead so you aren't in that silly position in the first place.

No turret: There's your one point.

Low health: It has 400 health, which is admittedly not a fantastic amount, but for a 150/175 FU assault gun, it's health is pretty damned solid requiring 3 ATG penetrations to kill. Against it's intended targets (Medium tanks and at-range LV's) 400 health is a pretty reasonable amount against an 87.5/65/50 damage weapon especially when combined with...

Weak armour: Against Hellcats, Fireflies and Pershings? I can see your point. Against Shermans, Cromwells and LV's? I think not. You're looking at 0.346 penetration for Shermans, and similar or lower for the Cromwell and most brands of LV. 76mm Upgun jumps it up to 0.646, but with luck on your side it's still a winnable fight. It's also impressive vs Bazookas even without skirts having a respectable 0.33 chance to be penetrated, or 0.25 chance with them (As well as the significant 0.75 damage buff that skirts give vs Bazookas). It's a very powerful tool for curbing Ranger spammers. AB require other tools though.

Low damage: lol. 87.5 damage as a base, which is medium tank damage for 150/175 FU. But that's not the selling point. The selling point is a staggering 1.5 damage modifier vs Sherman armour making it do 131.25 damage, which is a palty 6.5 points from being TIGER damage. It also has a 1.25 damage mod vs M10 armour, making it do a very respectable 109.375 damage, which is 15 points from being Firefly damage. It has the same 1.25 damage vs Greyhound armour. To sum this up, 5 rounds to bag a Sherman, 5 rounds to bag a M18, 4 rounds to bag a M10, 3 rounds to bag a Greyhound. Through damage alone, the StuG is a major pain in the ass for US.

Now take into account penetration rates of 0.75 vs Shermans, and guaranteed penetration against anything lower including Cromwells and it's a very solid weapon. It even has 0.55 penetration vs Pershing armour (Though no damage mods, so it'd be 87.5 damage) which for a 150/175 FU unit is very potent.

Long story short, get some screening infantry, and hover a Shreck/Faust or two around it and the only thing that'll give you hassle on treads is a Pershing, Firefly or Hellcat. Anything else you'll pull to bits and it's very low pop of 8 means you'll definitely be able to have support where your opponent wont.

Hell, I haven't even spoke up about it's MG yet, and that thing is a bag of lulz...

Hell, last game we had a lucky stug + shreck squad pretty much fended off two slightly injured Upgunned Shermans, both shermans got away with 10-20% and so did the stug, with the gren only losing one man.

Sure luck and good stug micro (reverse and turn) was involved, but the fact that the stug penetrated pretty much every single shot and did significant damage did help, it is by now means a bad tank.


I'd like to take what hicks just said and weigh in with Heat + Panzer Aces.


Stuk42HEAT vs. Sherman
Damage - 150.9
Long     - 81%
Mid       - 91%
Short    - 101%

Stuk42HEAT vs. M10
Damage - 126
Pen       - Lolwut

Stuk42HEAT vs. Pershing
Damage - 101
Long     - 59%
Mid       - 67%
Short    - 74%

And keep in mind that long range accuracy goes from .75 to .9 as well, not that huge in tank battles but it can give you an edge.
Man is that bad for a 160 fuel tank, and you'll miss a lot to with panzer aces in the same tree ::)

An overall good post, but not accounting for the whole picture.

Weaknesses:

Slow: Top speed is fine, where it suffers is it's abominal AI that is compounded by the lack of turret. It has a hard time bringing things into line of fire or manuevering without trying to do a U-turn or two.

Weak Armor: The armor is good vs British tanks and 75mm Shermans, it is useless against TD's of any kind, 76mm, or bigger. Especially when compounded with the issues it has bringing it's gun to bear.

Low Health: Only an issue because most doctrines get +Pen bonuses somewhere in their tree. Negated by default choices in many allied layouts when not already negated by basic target table (M10, M18, Perhing, FF, 76mm I'm looking at you) or when you have to deal with a fast moving unit that can shoot it from the rear (because of penetration, hard to save them from buttsex).

Low Damage: Good damage modifier, medium tank damage base. Again, made an issue because of the difficulty of bringing damage on target. All the damage in the world means shit if you can't hit. Does it count as stationary while rotating? Probably not. Boo.

Lack of Range: Has a hard time responding to it's main predators. Apparently Wehr can't have TD's. Also makes it an easy target for fast units by making them less likely to take more than 1 hit on their approach.


Strengths:

Low cost: Fairly cheap on fuel, even if they gut your company on Manpower and Munitions if you try to take advantage of that.

Good Armor: Vs Brits and 75mm Shermans it does pretty good.

Top MG: It's an upgrade, and should be balanced with the unit, and the unit balanced without it.

Low Pop: You can try and make up this Assault Gun/TD's weakness with stationary or expensive support! Hurray! Or you can get any other tank or a STuH and do the same, but more effectively. Also, the moment 2 extra pop makes this a higher threat than an M10 I will use them. Still, it can help you get that Pio squad out.


On top of that Niko and Hicks. You should never use a doctrine ability to balance a unit.

Shit AI?

The AI, with Panzer aces and the top MG is actually quite competent given it's price, compare it to something like the FF/M10/M18 and it's a fan-fucking-tastic piece of AI machinery, it's not just a tank destroyer. Again, panzer aces is in the same tree.

AI....It's Pathfinding....

It's not worse than any other tank really, if that's what you meant.


What makes you think we're using doctrines to balance this unit? Clearly we both think it's a pretty competent unit as it is. I just find the notion of heat not being worth it, specially when talking about the stug a little silly.

Even Speedy can micro StuGs enough to be effective. Saying the StuG is hard to micro is accepting that you have worse StuG micro than Speedy. I do not think we should balance units based on people who have worse tank micro than Speedy.


Try to list all these plentiful pen boosts and then let your cheeks burn in red flames of shame when you realize just how very wrong you are.


Yet again, your fault. Not the StuG's. Sure moving means less (0.75 mod) accuracy, but that will not be significant when fighting any of the units that can reliably penetrate the StuG. Except tetrarchs with LJA. The sole exception. And I guess ATGs. But why you would take on an ATG 1v1, front to front and need to move to keep the target in the StuG's sights will forever be beyond me.


Your only sensible complaint.


They aren't. It's already an excellent unit for the cost.


2 goliaths. Look, I just made the StuG a higher threat than an M10 by using the 2 extra pop.

The lack of turret compounds the issues with the CoH pathfinding. Making it a BITCH to manuever in many situations. It's not a stat, but it's a factor in game.

I think most people would be happy with it getting a bump in price to M10 levels, and a FU increase.

The MG needs to be balanced separately from the unit and shouldn't be included in it's base costs at all.

Mysthalin, STuG micro, well, tank micro in general is dependent on map. Like on Neuville there is a spot of tank pathfinding death in front of the church.

God help you if a STuG goes full retard. At least another tank can shoot back.

Let me count the Pen bonuses in the launcher when I get home, but off the top of my head, RCA, AB, Armor, Infantry (i think it still gets one to ATGs), will have to check RE and Mandos, haven't checked those in months.

Also, 10 Goliaths > 1 STuG, 2 Goliaths.

Congratulations AmPM, I want to hit you. It really gets up my skin when somebody who rarely/doesn't play the game any more starts preaching on balance.

Especially when they get shit wrong on a fundamental level.


When was the last time you used StuG's? I'm willing to bet it was a long time ago. StuG's ARE more difficult to micro, however it's also a unit that should be behind another one. Not only that, most micro problems can be overcome with experience and map knowledge (Knowing exactly which objects on a map fuck with pathing, etc)


It is NOT useless vs 76mm Shermans. It's 5 rounds for the Sherman to kill the StuG, 5 rounds for the StuG to kill the Sherman. StuG has 0.75 pen, 76mm Sherman has 0.646. It is entirely down to dice rolls as to who would win a stand-up fight. That's far from useless for a unit which is a clear 75-100 FU and 2 pop less expensive. It's also not useless vs M10's, due to the whole 0.6 pen on the M10's part. If a M18 sails your way, you should probably have something backing you up considering it's twice your weight in FU.


Other doctrines having penetration increases means the StuG should be changed as a base? People being unable to account for fast moving units also means that the StuG should be changed as a base? So basically, you want us to balance based on doctrines and user incompetence? Really?


Get used to pointing a tank at your target. I've had StuG's do plenty.


Yeah, this is where I tell you to go swivel on it. We don't use a doctrine ability to balance a unit, and StuG's can function fine without HEAT rounds - But they'll perform a damn sight better with it.

Two of those are T4 boosts so at "worst" the StuG would only face a 1/6th chance of meeting a T4-pen-buffed  company, with most of the units affected already having very excellent pen rates as it stands. And that's ignoring the very potent double T3 builds that could be used by the doctrines.

In the case of RCA cromwells - the 20% boost is... really not something you should care about much, if at all. It will not be a very significant change. In case of AB RRs with 20% more pen - sure. But that's pretty much the only meaningful buff of the lot.


Yeah? You wouldn't mind taking on 2 quads with that then, right?

Actually, the 20% doesn't matter at all, RR's 100% the stug by default iirc

Not really sure why to be honest, not when the zook only gets a 33%

100% Non-skirted, 75% Skirted. Brings up Skirted pen chance to 90%.

Fair enuff, RR's still kick it in the nuts :P

I remember that number from the sturmpanzer... the sturmpz should probably get skirted stug at the very least, not just standard stug imho.

I used them last night actually. STuH's are so much better BTW.

Sure if 2 units sit in front of each other and pound away the STuG does alright. Next time we play please park your tanks in front of it. If you are using a turreted tank you can come into range, shoot, and scoot away nicely. STuG, not as much. Can't really use buildings/hedges as cover offensively either.

Saying that it and a Sherman 76mm are even in a stand up fight is silly. That's like saying an M18 will lose to a Tiger in a stand up fight...well no shit, it's not using it's range, turret rotation or speed.

STuG should be used behind other units...with its mighty range? Not really valid. Similar to saying the P4 or Sherman should be used behind other units. Or is this so that infantry stop all those AT weapons from hitting it. If you have to kill the enemy AT for it to be effective a Puma could do the same job. Before you jump on this, YES you should try and avoid AT with any armored unit. Some can ignore it more or less to different levels, or can quickly and easily flank/bypass.

The STuG is a pain to micro compared to any other armored vehicle in the game, with less forgiving range, low HP, and armor that doesn't do much to defend it from it's primary opposition (ATG's, TD's). At least PE vehicles with similar issues have range on their side.

Tell me which point above is wrong. Just because you look at stats instead of actual use doesn't make it good.

Myst, you can Volks spam fine, but its the Volks and keep it moving that win the game, not the STuG. You could do the same with any other armored unit or even a HT if it had that buff.

If you read my posts prior to Hicks writing a short story about them, you would note the only change we all agreed was needed was a range increase and fuel bump. Which would allow them to compensate for it's other inherent weaknesses.

Myst, I wouldn't chase 2 Quads with 1 StuG anyway, that just asking to get ganked. And if I recall they have longer range so can continue to harrass your infantry anyway.

Also , you note the problem of the large amount of units with excellent pen rates? It's not that the STuG is inherently bad, it's that it got left behind in the evolution of a mod where field presence is more important than spammability. In some cases you reach a happy medium (Scoped MP44 Volks, AB, etc), in some cases not.

Especially when the name of the game is persistency and trying to win AND vet up units.

Please note, I don't think anyone is asking for a 600HP STuG with a Panther cannon that costs 160 fuel. What I think is reasonable is bumping it's main gun to 45 and it's cost to 190 or so, bringing into line with the M10. With Skirts and MG it would be 300ish MP, 220Fu, and 80ish MU with repairs or so (no launcher, someone check). It would perform the role of mobile AT for the Axis, similar to the M10 (especially since we lost our moving cloak PaK years ago...and yes, it broke EIRR to have it in originally).

The Cromwell cannot penetrate any tank and why are you taking un-upgunned shermans into account? It's like you intentionally leave out information to prove your point.


The M10 have similar damage and penetration modifiers, except they apply to all tanks, not just the panzer IV, one of it's main targets.


The Stug is a unit with many weaknesses, especially the lack of turret and range. It could use a minor buff like the range increase or higher accuracy when rotating. The argument it's cheap and therefor must suck isn't a very good one, I'd rather pay a little more for it to fill the role of a specialized TD.

He gave literally all the relevant information and you're accusing him of leaving information out? What?


The M10 obviously has a better gun. It also boasts much poorer armour and a higher fuel cost. Why are you assuming someone is saying the StuG = M10? Obviously it isn't - the point is that calling it useless is folly at best.


Yes, you can do precisely that if you can micro at all. I do it, speedy does it, many other players who are at least half-way competent with their tanks can do these things no problem. There should be no reason for your StuG NOT to be able to at least hold its own in a tank-to-tank firefight, and even less reason for you not to have support superiority for the StuG.


I don't even use Keep it Moving. I much prefer defensive volks to any other volks anyway. Woot omniscience and grenades. Not that the volksgrenadiers would be that relevant in the first place - but if we're bringing them in - it's the fact the StuG is so pop-efficient that allows the overwhelming volks squads to hit the field in the first place. The StuG's pop-efficiency is undeniable.


You asked for a way to utilise the 2 extra popcap over an M10. I gave you one. Stop being 'murrican about it.


Huh? I'd always go for moar spam over hoard vet, especially in this meta-game. And, at 8 popcap - the StuG can definitely boast some impressive field presence for the popcap cost.


Yet again, sure - the StuG could use a range increase to become standardised. Why do you want to increase it's fuel cost together with that? Don't really think it costing the same as an M10 would be warranted even with equal range.

Neither do I, but I would take it and it would make many players feel better if it got increased in price to go with it.

People hate when the opposition gets a buff without a price change.

Again, the cromwell can't penetrate any tank, using it for a specific comparison yields nothing nor does comparing the unupgunned sherman since up-gun is the most essential upgrade in the game, no one every uses a sherman without the up-gun, it might as well not be an upgrade being that it's essential, obligatory, not optional, required and a must have.

Shhh....we like to pretend we have options.

The StuG having a +5 range increase I can work with, it may not even need a FU increase at all.

However, what really riles me up is people making these bullshit arguments that somehow the StuG is a bad unit, that it's at some kind of major disadvantage. It REALLY pisses me off when said people spew out totally false "Facts" in defence of their misguided beliefs. Especially when there are potentially new people hovering around the forums who'll see these bullshit posts and think they have merit because the person spewing it has been around a while.

Bullshit like this for example:


Cromwell has 54% chance to get through PzIV armour, by definition that's a tank. A tank it has a respectable chance to get through. It has 90% chance to get through Ostwind armour, which also happens to be a tank. Hooray for more bullshit being spouted.

Sherman upgun is essential? Sherman upgun is ONLY essential when going up against dedicated PzIV/StuG companies. Any heavy armour or light armour focused companies won't give a shit about upgun. Do I have to bring out another page's worth of statistics to back that one up or are you finally going to get the point?

Either way, I've been using StuG's recently, they work. I still find suppress+StuG powah slide to be one of the most hilarious things in the game to watch at work.

I think you missed the point of my response to your original giant post. It was that for every strength you were stating about the STuG it had a weakness, you were making it out to be a powerful unit in it's own right.

I don't think I have seen a 75mm Sherman in a very very long time...

I didn't say the Stug is useless, it's worse than it's counterpart tank destroyers by having lower range and no turret, which means lower accuracy because it has to rotate in combat.

They'd be pretty viable in the current environment due to the lack of heavies, but they were extinct last reset due to late war making the 75mm pretty much redundant with all the high powered unlocks and heavy armour running around. Ran one in my core yesterday and it did pretty well, until the inevitable Panther got called in.

The StuG IS a powerful unit in it's own right. Most people's perspective of it being not worth it's price is mostly down to people being terrible with it. Kinda like how not many people are actually any good with Marders, but the few who are can shit on any armour-centric company's day.

You really going to tell me any upgrade in the game is more obligatory than stag/greyhound top MG?

I can't say I've upgunned a sherman in like a full year...

i only up gun if i HVAP(Rarely)

or i have left over fuel, but most of the time i use remaining fuel for jeeps and such.

The only true annoying thing about stug is its decel. It takes quite a time before the tank slides to a halt and starts to reverse. Guaranteed 2 atg hits.


I might give it a shot to try out T4 with a StuG volkssturm company, it might be effective really. StuGs effectiveness comes out when its assault role is utilized. What your panzerfausts can't hit, the stug most certainly can. Blitzkrieg gives the best toys for a StuG while Defencive gives the best toys for the Volksgrenadiers. A Defencive Volkssturm accompanied with a Blitzkrieg T4 StuG company is a force to be reconned with.

What StuG is mainly good for is its Anti tank role. It gives you that guaranteed long range AT support when assaulting. Yes StuG has no turret, that is why it must be accompanied by infantry at all times. Infantry is what covers its sides. No one likes to lose HP to fausts when they lolcharge a StuG with a M10.

I'm all up for 45 Range increase, makes StuGs role more valid and potential while increasing its threat level quite a significant ammount.

Also the best part: StuG is a awsome unit in its pop and cost effectiveness.

 StuG is ok right now had At but better at AI I like to use it together with Fausts and if Iam Blitz with a StuH or another StuG...

 Seems has of late I have been the only one utilizing the StuG nice to see it being discussed...

 I think turret-less tanks need nice range or ambush to make up for not having a turret.

 Rocksitter

Pre wipe I had a blitz coy using exclusively stugs/stuhs.

It was hit and miss depending n wether I faced inf coys or armor coys

 I seen lots of StuHs not many StuGs and was also told to stop using them by some players because the StuG is worthless. hahahahah

 Rocksitter

I think StuG's are fine.

Clearly StuG ain't gonna kill a Pershing. But they do good against quite a lot of stuff.

StuG's and Volks w/ Assault is classic blitz pushing. ATG's don't stand a chance, StuG MG's combat Infantry and a few Pak's Counter heavier armour(Also Team mates can help)

Golispam and stug spam unstoppable

1 won't. 3, on the other hand, especially with HEAT rounds, are a different matter. And still cheaper than the pershing. Lolz.

I like StuGs. I find them perfectly fine as is. They're cheap counters with high pop efficiency that you can call in a metric butt ton of. 16 pop for units that are immune to small arms fire, shit on medium armor unlike its turreted cousin, and can lelsuppressandpowerslidetodeath infantry with their lelmg34s? Yes please.

To those of you who don't upgun your Shermans, are you REALLY lacking that much fuel that you can't? I have 345 floating on my Infantry Company WITH 3 upgunned Shermans and an M10. So, yeah.

+5 range for the Stug? Fine. I have shit micro and I still like the StuG. It's a pain in the ass to kill when I'm facing it.

People don't understand attrition

That's actually a loss...Pershing (repair) 625 MP, 80 MU, 545 FU vs 3 STuG (repair, skirt, MG) 900 MP, 240 MU, 525 FU

So you lose the MP, the MU, and have 24 Pop compared to 16....and come out 20 FU ahead? GOOD DEAL!

But lets compare pop for pop. 2 STuG's vs a Pershing...yea, the Pershing will wreck face.

The pricing by the way, is why Heavy Tanks are so good to run, you can have a lot of armored power for very little company resource investment.

Two ways around that. The first is to flow through if you've been surprised at close range. The second is to issue a move command directly on the tank making it stop instantly, then hit reverse like it's going out of fashion. I usually only take the one hit unless I'm not paying proper attention.

Maybe everyone cba to exploit glitches in the game engine?

Right. K niko.

*exploits howie recrew bug*

Fuck no, where its at is having 9 howies on field at a time on the frontline.

Fixed

Myst, there is a difference between not knowing how and cant be arsed to.

Exploits are exploits, it's no different.

However, that requires us to know that the engine does not purposefully allow for STuG powerslide.

I'm all for it, but it's not really a big selling point, any tank that reaches a decent speed can do it.

I for one hate when people abuse poor map design and fire through the forests, and then claim its a feature.

I love shooting through forests and watching people complain about me doing it because they either have wonky principles or can't keep up the micro to do it accurately.

Everybody is capable of doing it, just like everybody can artificially extend range with attack ground.

Those who can, do. Those who cant, complain.

Hicks, you can properly set up your shot blockers in woods to prevent that from happening. Its just lazy mapping that leaves it out. Nearly as lazy as the woods in Forest where pathing isn't even blocked, want to claim thats a feature too?

And using the feature isn't skill, or even micro intensive.

You know what's more lulzy than shooting through a forest? Taking a piece of high ground and using attack ground down it, to have the round scatter over 25% more than your maximum range.

Had a Sherman pull off a (Roughly) 60 range kill shot on a Hetzer once, was hilarious.

Whether the mapper accounts for it or not, either everybody can do it, or everybody cant.

And everybody could exploit machine gun atgs by picking it up and stopping, but that was deemed to be exploitive, however i don't see the difference between exploits in the engine, or exploits in the map.

K, do that exploit now. Good luck!

its nice to attack ground the corner of a building or behind the building where a tank is sitting behind. Sometimes you even kill a low health tank although the enemy didnt see this coming lol

Putting a tank up the side of a destroyed building so it's chassis is physically pointing upwards will significantly increase the scatter range of it's attack ground. You cannot however hit close targets as it'll sail right over them unless the target happens to be massive.

The Stugs low survivability has other issues like how difficult it is to preserve vet or get a chance to use it's repair. Hence one of the main strongpoints of Blitzkrieg, double repair, is lost. The other issue is it's high pop, it's not significantly better than a pak or a schreck grenadier, it's more in line with a Marder or a GW which are both at 6 pop. The Marder and GW both have low pop because while they can deal good damage they lack toughness, hence they need other AT support to be effective, which is a lot like the Stug, it cannot stand on it's own. Stugs should be 6 or 7 pop and have 45 range like all other tanks.

Blitzkrieg could also use two divisions of tank destroyers, like the americans (m10, m13) and tank hunters (marder, hetzer), the Jagdpanzer IV would be excellent for that role. That way you can have the cheap Stug and the more expensive Jagdpanzer to make better use of double repair so that it will be possible to build a good tank destroyer company.

  30,000 allied tanks lay in ruin thanks to the almighty Stug assault gun..

 Rocksitter

Up the StuG's AI capability to almost match that of the P4.

Add in the Jagdpanzer IV/L48 as a non-doctrinal tank destroyer, possibly boost its cannon a bit more (or leave as is, since you can just upgun it).

Boom, your StuG is now an infantry support ASSAULT GUN, and your Jagdpanzer is now a...jagdpanzer...a hunting tank...TANK DESTROYER. Before the QQ starts, who ever used the JP4. EVER? I used one, once, was unimpressed and just used StuGs. So it would make it useful to just put it in and tweak the stats until it can work over tanks. If memory serves its cannon sucks vs. infantry already (the non-upgunned version, the upgun is a copy of the panther 75mm iirc, so that's also obviously bad).

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

StuG's anti inf abilities are fine. That's what the MG on the top is for. You don't buy StuGs to kill infantry, you buy them to chase away medium and light tanks from pestering your infantry.

ya that would eliminate the p4's already small role...

Excuse me, what role?

ask demon767

The Stug doesn't need better anti-infantry, it's a specialized anti-tank unit and should remain that way.

The Jagdpanzer IV is very unimpressive and it's supposed to be a reward unit.

Change the STuG to 45 range. That should just about fix it, allowing it to engage medium armor first and be effective vs the M10 and M18.

i miss dæmon.
his asian fetish was something to both laugh and and admire.
Also, Heat rounds in general is a pretty mediocre unit but with the Panzer ace buff it enables enables tigers and panthers to counter pershings and p4s to be able to stand up to shermans while still be able to fight infantry relyably, give it a try before you trow shit at it as its way better than going with the dual t3.

It's the same as the old dual T3....all that got strapped to it was an increase crit rate and the stupid MG buff..

But congrats! I'm glad it allows more expensive units with a T3 and T4 to counter Vanilla Upgun Shermans and for the more expensive Tiger/Panther to fight Pershings!

It's awesome that you need to have so much invested to make the P4 worthwhile vs anything other than infantry and light armor. Or that the Tiger needs Panzer Aces to have any reasonable accuracy.

You know what?
you are completly correct, How idiotic is that the british need to get ultra decription to be able to adequitely fight stormtroopers and the Commandos need the top t4 to be remotely effective?
Or tankhunters to get the top t4 to be able to fight all the Reward units?
Or Infantry doctrine needing triple bar rifles to be able to Fight off hoards of oakleaf KCH?

Its shitty balance, You would think that someone like you would be used to it but alas today i found out that you aren't.

Recon Tommies in a Bren make excellent recon and can fight...no doctrine required.

Commando's...see Tommy Recons, Jeeps, Brens

Infantry doctrine needs a single Sherman to do that, no doc required.

I don't care if my P4 loses to a Sherman as long as the price reflects that, or that the Pershing is better or equivalent to a Tiger as long as price reflects that.

The arguement that a Doctrine is good because it allows your more expensive unit to fight more effective cheaper units is stupid.

tankhunters top t4 to fight what reward units?  that makes no sense.

There is a whole trail of fail doctrines. Let's just put it that way.

They intradoctrinal balance is terrible, and the interdoctrine balance is bad as well. Power and usefullness varies hugely between abilties of the same Tier, with some T3's being more useful than situational or plain useless T4's.

But that argument is not what this thread is about.

It's about HEAT, and how bad it is as a choice for a T4. I'm going to put it through it's paces, mainly because I enjoy the vehicle gameplay more than the Infantry gameplay. Well, that and Terror doesn't get extra repairs at all so their tanks are praying not to hit a mine.

AmPm, you are purposefully misinterpreting Icelandic.

His point was that HEAT rounds allows these units to COUNTER their equivalents (which are, in all cases, only very marginally cheaper), rather than have a close fight (which is already generally skewed in the more expensive unit's favor).


I also don't see why exactly you're complaining about the P4 having a hard time against an upgun sherman. The Upgun for the sherman is of equal price to the P4 and it is a specialist upgrade that buffs one thing and one thing only - the Shermans ability to fight tanks. The skirts for the P4 is a mostly specialist upgrade that helps it against infantry, with a generalist application vs tanks (0.9 rec dmg). It'd be like losing your shit over your quad losing to vanilla hotchkisses (Omg, it's an upgrade to the halftrack that makes it about as expensive! It should have a decent chance of wining! Fix it NOW!).

hey, dont throw the p4 in this discussion. If theres a unit you cant fairly complain about, its the p4. "srsly"

Where did I say I had a problem with the P4 losing to a Sherman? My complaint was that they put in a doctrine ability that is effective for a low number of units and call it a T4.

And P4 vs Upgun is not even close, and the Sherman 76mm is not exactly bad at AI, in fact, it's still pretty damned good at it.

Break down the math for P4 + HEAT vs Sherman 76mm Myst, I know you want to and it would be interesting. Both units serve the same function, but I have always found the Sherman to be better at being a multi purpose medium tank.

 Had a idea  what about giving StuGs a rotation buff when you select doctrine abilities like Henschel design and others that give turret rotation buffs..

 Rocksitter