*

Account

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 29, 2024, 08:37:22 am

Login with username, password and session length

Resources

Recent posts

[November 01, 2024, 12:46:37 pm]

[October 05, 2024, 07:29:20 am]

[September 05, 2024, 01:54:13 pm]

[July 16, 2024, 11:30:34 pm]

[June 22, 2024, 06:49:40 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:13:38 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:12:54 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:09:37 am]

[December 30, 2023, 08:00:58 pm]

[February 04, 2023, 11:46:41 am]
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: [CW] Staghound - Underpriced?  (Read 44801 times)
0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.
Spartan_Marine88 Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 4838



« Reply #100 on: December 18, 2010, 05:57:15 pm »

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

WHAT?
Logged

Yes that's me, the special snowflake.
Malgoroth Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 960


« Reply #101 on: December 18, 2010, 06:06:57 pm »

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.   
Logged
Tymathee Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 9741



« Reply #102 on: December 18, 2010, 06:35:02 pm »

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.
Logged

"I want proof!"
"I have proof!"
"Whatever, I'm still right"

Dafuq man, don't ask for proof if you'll refuse it if it's not in your favor, logic fallacy for the bloody win.
sheffer Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 593



« Reply #103 on: December 18, 2010, 06:43:17 pm »

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!"
« Last Edit: December 18, 2010, 06:46:10 pm by sheffer » Logged


Senseless and ruthless.
nugnugx Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 4051



« Reply #104 on: December 18, 2010, 06:48:26 pm »

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.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2010, 06:53:26 pm by nugnugx » Logged

Illegal_Carrot Offline
Global Moderator
*
Posts: 1068


« Reply #105 on: December 18, 2010, 07:19:13 pm »

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.
Logged

Quote
Rifle87654: Give me reward points.
Brn4meplz: I'm drunk.
Artekas Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 784


« Reply #106 on: December 18, 2010, 07:53:06 pm »

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.
Logged
Tymathee Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 9741



« Reply #107 on: December 18, 2010, 08:43:41 pm »

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.
Logged
Spartan_Marine88 Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 4838



« Reply #108 on: December 18, 2010, 09:07:22 pm »

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
Logged
Illegal_Carrot Offline
Global Moderator
*
Posts: 1068


« Reply #109 on: December 20, 2010, 05:26:05 am »

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.
Logged
CollectiveSTLS Offline
EIR Regular
Posts: 43


« Reply #110 on: December 20, 2010, 08:30:25 am »

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.
Logged
AmPM Offline
Community Mapper
*
Posts: 7978



« Reply #111 on: December 20, 2010, 10:26:41 am »

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.
Logged


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mysthalin Offline
Tired King of Stats
*
Posts: 9028


« Reply #112 on: December 20, 2010, 11:12:57 am »

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

Illegal_Carrot Offline
Global Moderator
*
Posts: 1068


« Reply #113 on: December 20, 2010, 11:23:09 pm »

I don't see how light vehicles - hit and run raid units, ar not "commando-esque" in nature Smiley.
Because they have the Tetrarch for that, and even the Stuart with CS. The Stag is more of a tank than anything else.
Logged
Smokaz Offline
Honoured Member
*
Posts: 11418



« Reply #114 on: December 20, 2010, 11:38:43 pm »

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

SlippedHerTheBigOne: big penis puma
SlippedHerTheBigOne: and i have no repairkits
SlippedHerTheBigOne: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
spinn72 Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 1802



« Reply #115 on: December 21, 2010, 12:14:37 am »

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

^ +1
Logged
8thRifleRegiment Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 2210



« Reply #116 on: December 21, 2010, 12:21:27 am »

+1111111 ^^
Logged


I will never forget the rage we enduced together

Ohh Good, AmPm can pay in Doubloons.
Illegal_Carrot Offline
Global Moderator
*
Posts: 1068


« Reply #117 on: December 21, 2010, 12:50:25 am »

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.
Logged
Groundfire Offline
EIRR community manager
EIR Veteran
Posts: 8511



« Reply #118 on: December 21, 2010, 12:57:48 am »


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.
Logged

Latest Shoutcast:
EIRR Groundcast 11 "The Super Dev Showdown!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOGm79rXWhU (full version)

Illegal_Carrot Offline
Global Moderator
*
Posts: 1068


« Reply #119 on: December 21, 2010, 01:28:28 am »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

TinyPortal v1.0 beta 4 © Bloc
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.087 seconds with 36 queries.