Login

russian armor

Just bring us old Stug III!

11 Nov 2014, 17:12 PM
#21
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

StuG could need a buff. I wouldn´t even mind if the cost got increased for that.

Right now the 120mp, 35 fuel more are better spent for a turret, 2 free MGs and more health.

Su-85s make StuGs obsolete. A Panzer IV has chances though.

StuGs also hit the ground/obstacles pretty often since some patches ago.

All in all your money is better spent on a Panzer IV.

The biggest problem - and pretty much THE REASON I don´t go for StuGs - is the fact that it´s dead with three shots. This often means instantly. Increase its health and I might consider building StuGs.

11 Nov 2014, 17:32 PM
#22
avatar of SUCKmyCLOCK

Posts: 207

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Nov 2014, 17:00 PMWiFiDi
I am so F***ing offended by this biased piece of s*** pole!!! >:(



Poll......................
11 Nov 2014, 17:34 PM
#23
avatar of Jaigen

Posts: 1130

People he is asking for a role change not for a buff. the stug is a fine generalist unit but has no place in the current ost meta.
11 Nov 2014, 18:35 PM
#24
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17895 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Nov 2014, 17:34 PMJaigen
People he is asking for a role change not for a buff. the stug is a fine generalist unit but has no place in the current ost meta.


Because current meta is stall with T2 until tiger lolspam, which have nothing to do with stug, but cost effectiveness of tiger(and call-ins in general compared to stock units, to a lesser extend for axis, to definitely too big extend for soviets).
11 Nov 2014, 19:07 PM
#25
avatar of Jaigen

Posts: 1130

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Nov 2014, 18:35 PMKatitof


Because current meta is stall with T2 until tiger lolspam, which have nothing to do with stug, but cost effectiveness of tiger(and call-ins in general compared to stock units, to a lesser extend for axis, to definitely too big extend for soviets).


This is partially true. tigers are indeed the meta because of allied call in medium tanks completely roflstomp tier 3 tanks. alter the role of the stug and you see a lot less tigers. i would be very happy if they tied tank callins to teching trees
11 Nov 2014, 19:18 PM
#26
avatar of spajn
Donator 11

Posts: 927

I dislike the current stug, has way too low armor and health. That its vet ability is whats makes it worth anything is a huge fail and a bs ability to begin with. Limit micro for your opponent is a nono.
11 Nov 2014, 19:33 PM
#27
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17895 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Nov 2014, 19:18 PMspajn
I dislike the current stug, has way too low armor and health. That its vet ability is whats makes it worth anything is a huge fail and a bs ability to begin with. Limit micro for your opponent is a nono.


It costs 80 fuel and is most durable vehicle in game for that price.
11 Nov 2014, 20:01 PM
#28
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Nov 2014, 19:33 PMKatitof
It costs 80 fuel and is most durable vehicle in game for that price.


Actually 400 health is pretty standard for that price, which includes the StuG, M10, and Puma.

Anyway my problem with the StuG III is that once the Americans get M36 or E8's, or the Soviets get T-34/85's, the StuG III becomes totally obsolete. The M36 can kill it in just 2 hits, and the E8's and 85's are too durable for it to kill.
11 Nov 2014, 20:16 PM
#29
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Nov 2014, 19:33 PMKatitof


It costs 80 fuel and is most durable vehicle in game for that price.
Ostheer doesn´t need a StuG that goes down within seconds. The current StuG can´t compete with anything atm. It has the survivability of a light tank and not even the mobility of a medium. It also lacks a turret and operates in a clumsy manner. It has to turn its hull more often than turreted tanks and thus gets stuck easier.

Bad maneuverability + low health = Fuel better spent on a Panzer IV.
11 Nov 2014, 20:18 PM
#30
avatar of sneakking

Posts: 655

Permanently Banned
I'm waiting for Dane to post here :snfBarton:
11 Nov 2014, 20:25 PM
#31
avatar of TNrg

Posts: 640

Yeah I don't understand why it got it's health reduced.
11 Nov 2014, 20:39 PM
#32
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17895 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Nov 2014, 20:25 PMTNrg
Yeah I don't understand why it got it's health reduced.


There are only two weapons that make any difference in shots required to kill it.
Or it was reduced before WFA? Can't really remember, anyway the only weapons it makes any difference against is PTRS and bazooka. For every single other-its still 3 except ISU and KV-2.

@Mr. Someguy
There is also armor that adds to survivability you know, allied AT weapons doesn't all have 100% chance to penetrate it unlike axis AT against allied armor and as a cherry on top, it got most firepower out of all vehicles around its price.
11 Nov 2014, 20:47 PM
#33
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

I foresee no increase in stug usage if it is changed. It will get blown up by everything anyways, and you might as well get a panzer IV.

Also, im not voting for a poll that treats anyone that disagrees as a dumbass.
11 Nov 2014, 20:56 PM
#34
avatar of Frost

Posts: 1024 | Subs: 1

If u want, administrator just can options in pool i think.
11 Nov 2014, 21:15 PM
#35
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

Hey great lets put the T34/76 and SU-85 in the same tier as well!
11 Nov 2014, 21:30 PM
#36
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Nov 2014, 20:39 PMKatitof
There are only two weapons that make any difference in shots required to kill it.
Or it was reduced before WFA? Can't really remember, anyway the only weapons it makes any difference against is PTRS and bazooka. For every single other-its still 3 except ISU and KV-2.

The difference is that while it still takes 2 heavy hits or 3 normal hits to kill, any combination of the sort is more effective. The old StuG could take one heavy hit and one normal hit, or two normal hits and an AT grenade, etc. But these combinations are now lethal, and in it's current form one Sherman and one Jackson hitting a StuG will kill it instantly, whereas before the StuG would have a slim chance to escape if you reacted quickly.


jump backJump back to quoted post11 Nov 2014, 20:39 PMKatitof
There is also armor that adds to survivability you know, allied AT weapons doesn't all have 100% chance to penetrate it unlike axis AT against allied armor and as a cherry on top, it got most firepower out of all vehicles around its price.

It has 140 armour and lacks a turret. It's nothing impressive. I'd rather it cost 100 fuel and be more like the old StuG. As long as you're facing the American faction, there is no reason to get a StuG, it'd just be fodder for the M36.
11 Nov 2014, 21:49 PM
#37
avatar of Svalbard SD

Posts: 327

I'm all for an improved StuG. Currently you are much better off getting another Pak - almost as immobile, but lasts better and has much better penetration. StuGs would be much more useful if they were better in AT but worse (you could say almost useless) in AP.

At the very least, a buff to penetration -- with corresponding MP cost increase -- would be good.
12 Nov 2014, 01:42 AM
#38
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

still good against t34s, could do with a slightly lower cost but thats about it. put the allies meta back to t3, suddenly stugs will be alot more popular.
12 Nov 2014, 02:31 AM
#39
avatar of Cabreza

Posts: 656

For the price I think the StuG III performs fairly well, it's just that P4s do almost everything better. Choosing between a StuG and a P4 is like choosing between a T70 and a T34. The tank has an identity crisis in that it tries to be an all purpose assault gun in a tier that already contains a better all purpose medium tank.

I personally liked the old StuG III that acted like a specialized TD. It had a clearly defined role. The only problem was that the limited range and presence of SU-85s around the time it arrived pretty much limited it's effectiveness. If the range on it was increased to 55 or 60, it's old AT stats restored (leave the health where it is,) and it was given a price increase the StuG would have a much more defined role in T3 as a fragile but effective TD.
12 Nov 2014, 02:44 AM
#40
avatar of spajn
Donator 11

Posts: 927

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Nov 2014, 19:33 PMKatitof


It costs 80 fuel and is most durable vehicle in game for that price.


"good" argument, conscripts are better than grenadiers then because for the same price they have more combined health.


wrong


Why would I pay 80 fuel for a assault gun that does the same job as pz4 only with less health and no turret? This unit is only for fanboys of the stug or for the vet ability.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

558 users are online: 2 members and 556 guests
aerafield, ShadowLinkX37
12 posts in the last 24h
41 posts in the last week
152 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45263
Welcome our newest member, Amon
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM