Stuart vs Puma

[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

[31stPzGren]

Arguments.

I would compare the Stuart light tank against the M8 Armoured Car. The differences between the two is that, the M8 armoured car is able to own the puma where as the stuart just fails in comparison against it.

Edit: I used the Stuart in game and I saw it lose to the the Puma because of a combination of the Puma's dodge bonuses (or lowered accuracy), slow rate of fire by the stuart (although each round deals more damage... IF IT HITS). I emphasize the puma is NOT upgunned hence I did not put in the MU cost.

Take note I assume the ability pricing to be "even" hence I do not nitpick about the Upgun or Canistershot or .50 Cal etc. Please do not raise it up here. The point is about the unit @ vanilla pricing. *end edit*

Prices
Stuart @ 295 MP 60 Fuel 8 Popcap
Puma @ 300 MP 50 Fuel 8 Popcap
M8 @ 310 MP 50 Fuel 8 Popcap

Take note that;
1. The stuart and M8 use a cannon of the same calibre @ 37mm.
2. The stuart is an actual light tank while the M8 is just an armoured car.
3. The stuart and M8 costs slightly more than the puma

Differences in Application;
1. The Stuart & M8 is weak against Infantry but stronger against lightly armoured targets or vehicles.
2. The puma is an anti infantry platform, albeit requiring some boots.

Relevant Upgrades
1. With a .50 Cal upg or Canister Shot, the Stuart & M8 improves it anti-infantry capability though arguably it has been priced in
2. The Puma can upgrade with a light AT capability, stronger than the damage dealt by stuart/m8 and loses just a little anti-inf power. I always find it gibbing a single man with shots which hit.

Combat Performance
1. Pumas high ROF damages the Stuart more often than the Stuart firing.
2. Pumas hit more reliably than the Stuart
3. M8s perform better than the Stuart against the Puma
4. The pathing on the M8 is better than the pathing of the Stuart
5. The stuart moves slower than the M8 (I think)

In Closing
I think Stuarts should be slightly better than a puma in the sense that they are able to face off against a puma reliably. If no changes to their stats are made, please change the pricing.

Why change pricing?
IMO,

Manpower pricing has always been used as a gauge of the cost effectiveness of the unit in killing other units... A good comparison is for example, grenadiers vs volks.

Munition pricing is more about improving effectiveness of the unit, damage potential... reflected by weapon upgrades.

Fuel pricing is about exclusiveness or the amount of immunity the unit has to small arms fire (tanks) or its potential to do damage when used right (refer to units such as calliopes, priest, hummel etc.)

The Stuart has poorer anti infantry capability than both the M8 or Puma. The M8 can shoot better and the Puma is a natural anti infantry platform. The MP could use a slight revision downwards.

In terms of exclusiveness to small arms fire and anti tank weapons, the stuart is noticeably tougher than the M8 and Puma but its bad pathing makes it difficult to survive and its poor weaponry makes its extended survival of little use. The fuel should be brought in line with the other vehicles of similar class (i.e. to 50 fuel).

EiRR pricing & vCoH Pricing
I've said this before, I'll say this again.

vCoH pricing CANNOT BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE when considered for EiRR pricing because of "hidden costs".

For wehr, it is the teching and building of the relevant structure to build the unit. For the Ami, its commonly the barracks, supply depot and motorpool to make a M8. For brits, it would be the officer and the truck.

vCoH actual cost comparison as reasoning for balance
Name of Requirement - MP Cost / Fuel Cost [From COH-Stats]

Allies M8
Barracks - 160 / 15
Supply Depot - 100 / 50
Motor pool - 240 / 45
M8 - 280 / 30
Total - 780 / 140

Wehr Puma
Escalate to T2 - 200 / 35
Escalate to T3 - 200 / 50
Sturm Armory - 240 / 35
Puma - 280 / 35
Total - 920 / 155

British
LT - 250 / 15
Truck - 185 / 30
Captain - 300 / 35
Stuart - 280 / 45
Total - 1015 / 125

Some Clarifications First
From this account, it would seem as if the allied M8 should have a reduce in MP cost in EiRR. This is not true, the allied income works in a different way compared to wehr/brit (higher upkeep costs) hence the MP cost in terms of Supply is almost the same. However, this is not about M8 balancing but Stuart.

Based on the Figures above...
The Stuart costs significantly less fuel than the Puma in terms of total amount expended to reach it. However, this is NOT taking into consideration that no axis player will actually go straight to T3 from a pure "pioneer spam" since 1.71 and therefore, a wehr quarters will commonly be factored in, raising the MP & Fuel cost of the puma even further.

If EiRR is based on vCoH stats & pricing to a reasonable extent, one should see that there is good reason for the stuart to cost less than the Puma and M8. However, one may argue in retaliation that, all those "opportunity costs" of upgrading to that unit is blown out of proportion if you build only 1 unit. That I agree fully and what I'll say is that, the "opportunity costs" are designed to be spreaded evenly among an estimated "median" amount of units to be built.

Translated back to EiRR terms
Vehicles occupy a very unique role in EiRR. They are barely strong enough to fight infantry and runs at the first sight of tanks and dedicated anti-tank weaponry. They are very niche, limited in application and their pricing are well reflected, showing a slight increase in price in terms of value against normal infantry, and a slight fuel cost due to their limited immunity to infantry.

However, among this balance, the stuarts need to be reconsidered due to its poor performance on the field compared to the M8 and Puma and also, in relation to vcoh pricing, assuming vcoh pricing has achieved a better pricing balance in the 3 mentioned units.

In Closing
I kindly request for the DEVs to look into the stuart to make it a more viable unit by improving its stats but if that is not in line with the developer's vision, reduce the pricing marginally. I'm not saying it isn't useful now, I do like it a lot but it is less cost effective than the other vehicles such as Puma & M8. Its only saving grace is its ability to take 3 shreck shots or 2-3 ATG shots. Arguably, this is offset by its poor pathing... which makes the best attempts at micro look like a panicky player in wwiionline trying to drive a tank under heavy anti tank fire who has a the same time spilled his drink on his keyboard.

As for the rest, I would like to hear your inputs and discussion on the vehicles involved... though I prefer focused more on the stuart tank.

[AmPM]

Lets display the correct price and add the MU price of upgunning the Puma on their.

With a higher price it should win.

Historically it would win.

Its gun can put a hole straight through a Stuart at nearly any range.

As far as the Stuart being a light tank, thats true, but in game its actually more of an armored car in the hierarchy of things. Its like a less expensive m8.

[31stPzGren]

Lets display the correct price and add the MU price of upgunning the Puma on their.

There is no MU price. I saw the 20mm Puma damaging my stuart very heavily. NO UPGUN.

And it isn't a less expensive M8. 15 MP doesn't matter much when you only buy at most 3 or 4 of such things. Fuel however, is a very limited supply compared to MP and can make a difference.

I think you misunderstood my position.

[AmPM]

Fuel pricing is about exclusiveness or the amount of immunity the unit has to small arms fire (tanks) or its potential to do damage when used right (refer to units such as calliopes, priest, hummel etc.)

In terms of exclusiveness to small arms fire and anti tank weapons, the stuart is noticeably tougher than the M8 and Puma but its bad pathing makes it difficult to survive and its poor weaponry makes its extended survival of little use. The fuel should be brought in line with the other vehicles of similar class (i.e. to 50 fuel).

Pathing has nothing to do with it, and you already validated its higher fuel price. I don't see your position here.

[Tymathee]

IRL, a stuart would pwn a puma and the stuart is badass as an AI platform.

he M3 was armed with a 37 mm M5 gun and 5 .30-06 Browning M1919A4 machine guns: coaxial with the gun, on top of the turret in an M20 AA mount, in a ball mount in right bow, in the right and left hull sponsons.

in game...i have no idea what the hell the stuart is good for other than destroying buildings, which it seems to do really well at.

[AmPM]

Puma 5cm Gun > 37mm gun in range and penetration. A Stuart will get dropped by anything in just about one hit.

Hell, a Puma could knock out a Sherman at decent range from the front, even better from the sides.

[Tymathee]

Stuart vs Puma their stats.

↓   Acc  ↓   Mov  ↓   Dmg  ↓   Pen  ↓   R-Pen  ↓   Sup  ↓   Pri   ↓

Sdkfz 234 Puma   0.9   0.8   1   1.63   11.7   1   130

Puma vs Stuart

Stuart   1   1   1   0.085   2.33   1   0

so yeah, a stuart should win.

[agtmadcat]

Cmon guys, read it again... he said that the Puma was *not* upguned. I agree that an upgunned Puma should pwn a Stuart, but the reverse should be true for a stock Puma. Stock pumas are armed with a pathetic 20mm cannon, the same kind used on the Panzer 2. That means it has virtually no penetration, and the Stuat did have a reasonable amount of armour. Looking at real life penetration tables, A Stuart should be able to punch clear through a Puma at 500m (In fact just going by penetration numbers it'd be able to go in one side and out the other...), whereas at the same range a Puma may *just* be able to penetrate some parts of the Stuart. In close (100m), a Puma should be able to penetrate the Stuart on some armour facings. So yeah. This site is your friend: http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/introduction.html
-AGT

[AmPM]

And how does reality apply?

Panther vs Sherman?

KT vs Firefly (KT was never penetrated from the front during combat, the Russians barely cracked one during testing of its front armor plate).

If you bring reality into it we end up with a shitty game.

Just accept that the Stuart is an Armored Car and be done with it.

[31stPzGren]

Pathing has nothing to do with it, and you already validated its higher fuel price. I don't see your position here.

Then you should read the post in its entirety. While the stuart is tougher than the puma or m8, it is less versatile than the M8.

On further examination of the weapon statistics on Coh-Stats...

All stats of its 37mm cannon is similar except for the following. The Stuart takes 6.5 sec - 5 sec or so (need to double check in corsix) to reload where as the M8 takes 7 sec to reload.

However, a comparison across the board for overall performance shows this.

Penalty for firing when moving for M8 is 0.75, for stuart is 0.5.

Generally across the board, stuart 37mm (0.5) is less accurate than M8 37mm (0.75) against these infantry targets;

Normal Infantry Armour, Airborne, Heroic, Elite, Sniper.

The damage done to Puma is also different. Stuart has 0.9 accuracy and 0.8 damage modifier against puma where as M8 has no modifiers.

Additionally, the damage done by the puma against stuart and m8 varies.
M8 receives only 0.75 (stationary) 0.8 (moving) modifier with 0.3 damage. The Stuart takes full (value of 1.0) for stationary, moving and damage.

The stuart has twice the HP of the M8 but, if you examine the damage tables of panzerschreck and pak, you'll find that stuart receives full accuracy & damage (1.0) while the M8 has 0.8 modifier against shreks while moving and a 0.7 damage received from pak and 0.73 when stationary and 0.8 when moving accuracy modifier.

On a further examination of a wide range of axis small arms, varying from Kar98k to MG42 LMG & HMG and basically most non-AT based weaponry the stuart is nearly impervious with a 0.001 damage modifier while both stuart and M8 has a 0.01 chance to receive penetration damage from small arms.

Converted to the EiRR context, this is worthless because at any point in time in the game, a decent player will always have AT weaponry on the field which has a higher chance of hitting the stuart!

Combine this with the presence of tanks and all other known weaponry capable of anti-tanks, the stuart is NOT as good as it sounds.

Therefore AMPM, the higher fuel price is not validated in terms of exclusiveness to anti tank weapons. With regards to the M8, where it is not as invulnerable to small arms fire as the stuart is, no M8 will actually get shot upon by small arms fire for a duration sufficiently long enough to kill it... rendering this benefit to the stuart worthless.

In the vCoH context, where the stuart comes at a time with little Anti-Tank weaponry with the exception of the fausts, it is quite a formidable opponent. In EiRR context, it just doesn't work.

[RikiRude]

i just have to say that the puma dodge bonus is total BS, the only thing that can kill them reliably is a AP MG. why doens't the M8 get a silly bonus like this? also there is much more to kill an M8 then there is to kill a puma.

also the stuart friggen blows, I haven't seen anyone use one, I tried using them in EiRR, and they can't hit anything, and the canister shot blows, half the time Ive seen it only kill 1-2 guys, and even if there is a group of guys bunched up (3-4 squads of grens) i still only get maybe 4 guys max. it's silly.

[stumpster]

why doens't the M8 get a silly bonus like this?

It does.  That is what made M8 spam so effective back in the day.

[DasNoob]

You would know stump 

[AmPM]

Really? I see Stuarts nearly every game. And Canister shot is awesome, get in close, boom. Dead men everywhere. Need to drop that ATG crew? Drive in behind it, Canister shot, dead.

Riki, you are one of the people I can say this to and not feel bad. L2P

[agtmadcat]

I'm not saying that the game should be just like reality, that's obviously much harder to balance, considering that the US then wouldn't have any tanks worth a damn, and you'd have to figure out how to make Allies drastically outnumber Axis, and so on... But I think that any time you're discussing"Which of these units should win in a 1v1?", it's important to take your cues from reality. Obviously sometimes things have to be modified for balance, but when something is unrealistic *and* unbalanced, which I believe it is in this case, that's two reasons to fix it. An unupgraded Puma shouldn't be able to hurt any tank, even a light tank, except at stupid-short range.

Personally I think that canister shot should be made cheaper, or the commander upgrade made free, or something, to give the Stuart a bit of a boost, to make it a bit more appealing. Or hell, make canister shot be on a timer, since at the moment sometimes it doesn't work, so it's a wasted pile of munitions... -_-
-AGT

[Tymathee]

i'd have to agree. for its price, the stuart is a pos. lower it to say 240 60 and we'd be good (60 fu to keep from spammin git) one thing i know the stuart is good at, which i mentioned earlier is taking out buildings. for whatever reason, the stuart does a lot of damage on buildings. Now, it may not do much damage ot anything inside it but it will knock a building down in say 5 or so shots.

Hell, I say give the Brits the staghound thats much more effective than the frakin Stuart.

hell, looking at the stats, the stuart is best uses zooming it around the field popping things in the ass and also taking out marders and hummels as it gets twice the damage.

[AmPM]

And today Tym showed you all what to use a Stuart for....

[GefreiterHummel]

actually dont know who wins but i think the puma should win because hes more expensive with upgun

[Schultz]

considering that the US then wouldn't have any tanks worth a damn

Not this again, pls..

I stand by 31st though and argue for a price reduction. Running around hitting things in the ass, shouldnt cost that much.

[Mysthalin_Axis]

actually dont know who wins but i think the puma should win because hes more expensive with upgun

Did you read any of the posts, or are you playing stupid?
NO UPGUN INCLUDED!!!!
Stuart is useless, 2 shrek shots to kill it, hitable by shreks at max range almost 99 percent of the time, low penetration values, can't hit infantry even at close range while stationary(nor do enough damage to talk about). Only use for it is to pop stuff in the ass as that stuff is fighting something actually useful, like a cromwell(only AT duties - won't hit grens at point blank, ever) or a churchill.

I believe the cromwell could use an anti-infantry boost, to be honest - it just doesn't hit infantry, for some strange reason. For any axis player that "it rapes infantry, wtf?", I suggest you try to crush a shrek squad with a cromwell to be pleasantly surprised. Not only does the cromwell just not hit the shrek squad, if you somehow manage  to crush a guy with a cromwell, you come to an instant halt and stay on button'esque slow-down for around 5 seconds. It's actually beneficial for an axis player with a pak + pio combo to run in the pio squad into the cromwell to stop it and therefore kill it with the pak.

All in all, stuart is useless.