[CW] Staghound - Underpriced?

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Spartan_Marine88]

Could aswell give the canister to the sniper just incase he gets overrun.

WHAT?

[Malgoroth]

I'm not too sure on what I think about Staghounds with Canister Shot, but do remember they are quite munitions heavy. So even if they are a pain in the ass to fight... at least their cost is at least somewhat representative of it.

I haven't actually seen any Staghounds with canister shot however, so I cannot really gauge their effectiveness and make an argument for or against them.

I don't know about the current canister shot, I haven't played enough this war to see it yet, but if it's the same canister shot that the Stuart used to have then it was an absolutely terrible fucking idea to put it back in the game. I remember vividly the thing repeatedly gibbing multiple squads with a single use. And fuck off already with the 'don't blob' response. Two squads isn't a blob. Even if it was one squad, these "I win" abilities have no place in a game like EiR.   

[Tymathee]

the reason i say the stuart is cuz it doesn't have an hmg to deal with infantry, it's rather poor vs infantry and the canister shot is more of a per-use right? putting it on the staghound is just ridiculous, schrecks coming, boom, give with canister, take out the rest.

[sheffer]

nugnugx have a Commando doc coy without any commando unit with stags + canister shot and all 3 offmaps. I think he will take +1 offmap for unlimited fun. Only it seems to me that there something wrong?
I respect nugnugx and i hope he play this way to show devs that new docs are not so good, not for "Look what kind of new bs found, noobs!"

[nugnugx]

nugnugx have a Commando doc coy without any commando unit with stags + canister shot

who said i need commandos ? you can make your company however you like , and if there are stag buffs  like more canister uses , recieved acc on move and canister to buy it's clear what you can use also.

Soon people will be telling you what you have to buy and what your company should look like.

[Illegal_Carrot]

who said i need commandos ? you can make your company however you like , and if there are stag buffs  like more canister uses , recieved acc on move and canister to buy it's clear what you can use also.

Soon people will be telling you what you have to buy and what your company should look like.

But a Commandos company that takes absolutely no Commandos, Commando support teams, Lts, Snipers or any other unit that's indicative of Commandos is proof positive of poor design. It's like an Armor player that has absolutely no vehicles or armor, instead opting to spend all their resources on infantry: it shows lack of planning and laziness when designing a doctrine.

[Artekas]

Or it simply shows that some people don't always want to use doctrinal units. I played 8 games as US airborne before rework, never used a single airborne unit. I picked Airborne because it had doctrinal buffs I was interested in for other units, such as riflemen defensive positions and mines, not to mention lolstrafe.

[Tymathee]

But a Commandos company that takes absolutely no Commandos, Commando support teams, Lts, Snipers or any other unit that's indicative of Commandos is proof positive of poor design. It's like an Armor player that has absolutely no vehicles or armor, instead opting to spend all their resources on infantry: it shows lack of planning and laziness when designing a doctrine.

why is that? why must u take the doctrinal units just cuz its the name of the doctrine?

can i go infantry without a triage, ranger or howie?
how about armor withotu pershings, t-17s or callies?
blitz without storm, tiger, etc.

Heck, the very fact that you CAN play without the doctrinal units shows very good design.

Just like in RCA, I don't use any of the doctrinal units nor am i planning to. Could i? Yes for sure and do just as well but i dont want to use the 95, mortar pit or priest, i like the bluffs that RCA gives to other stuff.

[Spartan_Marine88]

why is that? why must u take the doctrinal units just cuz its the name of the doctrine?

can i go infantry without a triage, ranger or howie?
how about armor withotu pershings, t-17s or callies?
blitz without storm, tiger, etc.

Heck, the very fact that you CAN play without the doctrinal units shows very good design.

Just like in RCA, I don't use any of the doctrinal units nor am i planning to. Could i? Yes for sure and do just as well but i dont want to use the 95, mortar pit or priest, i like the bluffs that RCA gives to other stuff.

You know carrott just likes to bitch, its tiring tbh, but as you pointed out its this mods strength that you can do so much with it

[Illegal_Carrot]

can i go infantry without a triage, ranger or howie?
how about armor withotu pershings, t-17s or callies?
blitz without storm, tiger, etc.

Bad examples. More like:
Infantry without Rangers, concentrating on LV and armor spam.
Armor without many vehicles, concentrating more on AT Rifles + Combat Engineer spam.
Blitz without armor, focusing mainly on support spam.

It's not that he's playing without Commando units, it's that he's using the doctrine in a way that it was not intended to be used, and that the doctrine itself allows for it. Spamming offmaps and armor is not the way to play Commandos. Not because I'm some sort of 'You can't play like that!' Nazi, but because it's poor doctrine design.
If Infantry doctrine gave Shermans AP Rounds, or Tank Hunters got HMG support teams + mortars, you wouldn't see what poor design that is?

You know carrott just likes to bitch, its tiring tbh, but as you pointed out its this mods strength that you can do so much with it

Would you grow up already? All you do is follow me around the forums posting what amounts to 'I don't like Carrot,' and contributing nothing to the discussion at all.
I'm making a point, and discussing + supporting it. If you believe you're right and I'm wrong, feel free to try and disprove me. If you're truly the voice of reason in all of this, which you seem to think you are, then it shouldn't be hard for you to disprove me (which you have yet to do).
Until then, stop posting this useless crap.

[CollectiveSTLS]

I'm not too sure on what I think about Staghounds with Canister Shot, but do remember they are quite munitions heavy. So even if they are a pain in the ass to fight... at least their cost is at least somewhat representative of it.

I haven't actually seen any Staghounds with canister shot however, so I cannot really gauge their effectiveness and make an argument for or against them.

 The canister shot on stag is 80 munitions atm. You only get one shot. However considering the damage it does i think it's more than well worth it to have on every stag. Also it's really very effective even if the infantry unit is spread out the damage the shot does is going to cripple it :/.
 I just don't think they needed that kind of AI buff they're perfectly capable of dealing with inf as it is.

[AmPM]

Or it simply shows that some people don't always want to use doctrinal units. I played 8 games as US airborne before rework, never used a single airborne unit. I picked Airborne because it had doctrinal buffs I was interested in for other units, such as riflemen defensive positions and mines, not to mention lolstrafe.

AKA, AW spam =)

If you can play a doctrine and not use any units that it actually buffs, and through the use of offmap spam beat companies that are using their buffed units well there is probably an issue.

[Mysthalin]

I don't see how light vehicles - hit and run raid units, ar not "commando-esque" in nature .

[Illegal_Carrot]

I don't see how light vehicles - hit and run raid units, ar not "commando-esque" in nature .

Because they have the Tetrarch for that, and even the Stuart with CS. The Stag is more of a tank than anything else.

[Smokaz]

Its lol to think about the fact that the stug has as much health as the stag.

[spinn72]

Its lol to think about the fact that the stug has as much health as the stag.

^ +1

[8thRifleRegiment]

+1111111 ^^

[Illegal_Carrot]

Its lol to think about the fact that the stug has as much health as the stag.

Less.

The Staghound has 450 HP, more than the StuG/StuH/Ostwind/M10/M18 (400), any other LV (300-310) and even as much as a Hetzer (450).
It has tank crits, making it even harder to cripple and kill. It will often 5% bug.
Its armor, while not very thick, can still bounce shots from LV soft-counters like the Ostwind and P4 IST. It also allows it to win 1v1 vs any other LV.
It's main gun is comparable to a Cromwell's.
It's top-mounted MG is better than that of a Sherman.

The thing is a fucking tank, not a LV.

[Groundfire]

It's main gun is comparable to a Cromwell's.

This is wrong, it's more a fixed stuart gun, but there's no doubt that the health should be looked at.

It was meant to replace the crom officer tank in vCoH so it has to exist amongst panthers and tigers with immobile AT.

I think it would be a good idea for the balance team to look at reducing the health of the stag.

[Illegal_Carrot]

This is wrong, it's more a fixed stuart gun, but there's no doubt that the health should be looked at.

Cromwell 75mm vs Staghound 37mm

L/M/S Accuracy
.75/1/1 vs .75/1/1

Damage
87.5 vs 65

Moving Accuracy
.75 vs .5

Range L/M/S
40/20/10 vs 40/20/10

Reload
4.5-6 vs 5-6.5

Penetration against Ostwind
~.9 vs ~.7

P4
~.54 vs ~.42

StuG
~.32 vs ~.31

Tiger
~.22 vs ~.17

Accuracy vs Infantry/AB/Heroic
.65 vs .65

Accuracy vs Soldier
.75 vs .75

etc.

The Cromwell is obviously better in most cases, but only slightly, and these differences could easily be negated with RCA's T3s. While similarities can be drawn between the Stag and the Stuart, just as many can be drawn between the Crom and the Stag. It's increased HP, armor crit table, thicker armor and top MG make it more of a tank than a LV. It costs less than half a Cromwell in terms of Fu and Mu, yet is near equally effective. And it is by far the most effective LV out there.