I doubt that, you probably do not remember when you AT penetrated the PZ 4 times in row although the chance of that was something like 20%
He's exactly the type of player whose stock Sherman penned my OKW P4 frontally 4 times in a row, thinks he "outplayed" me and starts trash-talking non-stop, then throws up a complete hissy fit about balance when my next P4 bounces one or two shots from his AT gun.
Do you feel this same way about the jackson nerf?
Jackson went from being batshit OP to being still very good, so why would I feel rage at it? I still go Sherman-Jackson every game as USF with only 1 AT gun throughout the whole game. I literally never have problems fighting off an OKW P4 with an M1 AT Gun - it's always the infantry-supported pushes killing my AT gun that causes problems. As USF the thing I hate most is Obers wiping out my AT gun crew with their 35 range gatling gun.
I don't rage at the balance team or balance issues. Much less non-existent "balance issues" like the cheapest stock AT gun with the best arc, tracking, fire rate, and range having less penetration. I rage at RNG usually because that is genuine unfairness. I believe the balance team is doing the best they can to balance 5 factions for 4 game modes given that the scope of what they're allowed to change is limited by Relic, and they're not a highly-paid, well-staffed professional team. Even when there are imbalances like *fucking Ostruppen sniper cancer* I don't cuss out the balance team like the typical forum meta.
This is absolutely spot on. The Stuart is a jack of all trades and, as such, does of course feel quite a bit underwhelming if you compare it with more specialized light tanks in areas where these excel. Still, it has much better AT than a T-70 as well as much better AI than both the Puma and AEC, making it extremely versatile in most scenarios.
This versatility may arguably get more and more redundant in teamgames where other players can easily cover the weaknesses the more specialized lights leave in your roster, but in 1v1s the Stuart is no doubt a great unit.
I used to go LT- Stuart all the time, but recently discovered how insanely good the Captain's "On Me" is, so I've been playing with LT-Cpt builds a lot more since I do feel that way about the Stuart as well. Decent for its price but I would rather get two specialists which only cost manpower (50 cal and AT gun) and save the fuel for a Sherman rush.
Yet another braindead 50 IQ post.
With a PAK or 6-pounder you would only have fired 4 shots instead of 6, and you would still have had roughly the same chance to penetrate at that range because of the AP rounds. Apart from PAK43 or 17-pounder there was nothing that could have been done when one rolls so badly 4 times in a row.
When I get bad RNG I yell some stuff in shoutbox instead of making a thread about "XYZ OP". At least a shoutbox comment is easy to ignore, doesn't clog up space in the forum, and is properly classified as angsty venting and not a completely biased balance whine based off of a 3rd grader's understanding of mathematics.
You certainly have a right to feel angry when you get robbed of a win or robbed of the enjoyment of a game sheerly through bad luck. I'm one of the last people to deny you that righteous angst. But this is truly beyond stupid that 8 years into this game's lifespan people like you still think bad RNG is a balance issue.
Just last week my Panther bounced two ZIS gun shots AND an SU85 shot to avoid being snared. 5 minutes later a T34-76 penned it frontally 3 times in a row. Across hundreds of thousands to millions of rolls there are bound to be good rolls and bad rolls.
Time for me to write a forum post that T34-76 penetration is too high, SU85 pen value too low.
Since USF was nerfed into the ground everything that they have is mediocre at best including the Stuart.
Compared to T-70 the Stuart is significantly worse in the Anti-Infantry department while having a similar cost to these units. T-70 synergizes well with Soviets since it can support your infantry (Conscripts/Penals) or Cover your Maxims from Flanks. Meanwhile it can capture Territory and has a very useful Recon ability providing it sight without needing to gain veterancy.
Panzer II "Luchs" also significantly better in the Anti-Infantry role and though it does have worst AT performance it is not needed due to easy access to Raketenwerfer, Sturmpioneer Panzershreks and OKW can lay mines to cover potential retreat paths for the Luchs. It can turn invisible as well to scout.
AEC has terrible AI but its AT performance can soft counter medium tanks and the Target Tread Ability remains useful in all stages of the game so it never feels like a waste of fuel to invest into an AEC.
Puma is similar to the AEC but it has massive sight (50 vision compared to the Stuarts 35 vision) so not only is it effective at scouting but can disable Vehicle Turrets winning you future engagements. If you grab heat rounds you can tackle medium tanks easily making Puma an excellent choice that never feels like a waste of fuel. To add insult to injury here the Puma also has similar AI levels as the Stuart while surpassing it in both vision and AT performance.
Compared to the other Light Vehicles Stuart is easily the worst one in the game hands down. Both in its performance, its abilities and its ability to Scout as it needs to get to Vet 3 just to be able to provide similar vision to a Kubelwagon or a Puma/AEC without Vet. Considering that OKW has many options for Sight (Even Volksgrenadiers gain sight through VET) the Stuart should excel in the Sight department without the need for Veterancy considering USF's lack of options in that department and the lack of shock value the Stuart has compared to a T-70 or Luchs. Its not like USF has the option to call in a Spotlight Halftrack providing 90 Vision or other vision options spread across numerous units.
Mostly fair except for the insanely wrong "similar AI performance" between Puma and Stuart. Puma has almost no AI, Stuart has okay AI stats, but it feels bad because everyone compares it to the T70 which has insane AI.
The real problem is that the Stuart falls into the same type of generalist trap that several other vehicles fall into - they never feel good enough but actually they're quite balanced for their cost. They provide modest AI and modest AT for a modest price. A huge difference between the Stuart and the T70 is that Stuart kills Luchs and flak HT a lot easier and faster, and comfortably beats 222s without any risk. Stuart stands up very well to Ostwind and its abilities are insanely good (albeit micro-intensive). Personally I don't like EZ8s because they're not as good as HE Shermans vs infantry, and I prefer to use Jacksons for AT, so I do feel the same way about the Stuart.
But for its super cheap cost it is definitely good enough for its price and timing. Targeting actual USF issues late game makes more sense than over-buffing a unit which is already picked virtually all the time in 1v1 games.
Wait. Straw man argument.
There's no realistic situation where two players are exactly equal in skill, so it is not a basis for comparison.
When you're winning thanks to skill, your unit is not OP.
Zero IQ comment with zero value input on the issue of snipers deserving to be nerfed.
You are literally attacking a throwaway ending comment that isn't even part of the argument.
Even at rank 400 almost no one loses sniper to an m20 or Stuart.
If you build snipers you lack stopping power? MG42/Vickers/Dshka? Plus the fact that you need to blob because you auto-lose all engagements in 1v1 situations, which make said HMGs LOL even harder.
In 1v1 dynamic fights typically happen all over the map, and taking engagements in the first 10 minutes relies heavily on skill, positioning, and game-sense. But snipers delete all of that and make the infantry game literally unplayable. The non-sniper player is now forced to avoid all fights or bleed 3 models to 0 every single fight.
As OKW you are forced to suicide your volks by running them close range vs sandbagged Cons, vs Penals, or you can just run away from literally every single engagement and give up the whole map anytime red appears. Either that or you can gather all your units and try to run straight at the enemy force.....Which gets shit all over by a dshka if it's the mid game, or simply results in atrocious manpower losses from charging stupidly away from your ideal range and into your enemy's ideal range. Oh, and a retreated sniper which can just continue bleeding the shit out of you 30 seconds later.
As USF you go from winning every 1v1 engagement vs Grens to losing every 1v1 engagement. Instead of having the potential to envelope and overrun Ost before they get a critical mass of Grens and try to snowball into LT and LVs to continue the midgame snowball, you basically have three choices to lose the game.
1) You can charge straight for the sniper with multiple squads and be reminded that mg42 exists
2) You can try to split up your forces and be instantly defeated wherever the sniper shows up, while bleeding horribly from any engagement.
3) You can avoid all engagements and instant retreat every fight until you get m20, and just surrender most of the map, then gamble that Grens are out of position and sniper is slow to retreat. /l if you get fausted or if you can't kill sniper before 222 shows up.
Everything in COH2 is built on the rock-paper-scissors formula. But with snipers there's no counter except a literal counter-sniper or something similar like JLI. Sure, you can still beat your opponent if you're way better than them, but that's not even a reasonable argument.
Problem with the stuart is very lackluster AI performance, but also not that great AT capability. In terms of anti-tank, it is better than the T-70, but realistically can only engage the exact same units as the T70 and expect to win (halftracks, scout cars, luchs, rocket artillery).
I wouldn't want to buff the Stuart's AI, in case it makes USF midgame too oppressive, but maybe a pen buff to make it more consistent against medium tanks (which the Stuart should be able to support in attacks against like the AEC).
Stuart becoming more AT-oriented would make LT tier too strong though. It's already picked the majority of the time in 1v1 games because you have 50 cals and m20 to dominate enemy infantry while the Stuart provides help to handle 222s/Flak HT/Luchs, which gives USF a very strong mid-game and also allows you to go BARs instead of Zooks for even more anti-infantry dominance.
USF certainly doesn't need more help in the mid-game; I wonder if cheaper back-teching once Major is unlocked might be the way to help USF late-game instead. The AT gun/hmg split has always been the thing I've hated most about USF. I'm guessing it's too late in the game's life cycle to experiment with that though.
I do like the idea to get a reinforce cost reduction kinda similar to Ost, maybe pairing it with unlocking all officers could make the backtech route more palatable. Heck, you could even put it in a commander if that makes it more thematic.
Lol, it seems I have touched a nerve. I'm not even going to bother responding to the ad hominum attacks about not having played the game. The reason I brought up losing rifles is because other armies don't get hurt nearly as much by having a unit wiped lategame as USF with its rifles. I feel like you kinda agreed with said point by talking about how much US is reliant on rifles. I have no issue with rifles being an important core of the faction.
The point is USF struggles with MP bleed lategame, and this was a suggested fix. If you have another fix, please go ahead and state so, otherwise just say you don't think any changes are necessary. In my opinion at least, the reason USF got upkeep reduction upgrades in COH1 are specifically to fix this issue with an army reliant on a single unit type in lategame, and that such a help may be necessary in COH2.
This is quite wrong though.
In the late game Vet 0 Volks are trash, Vet 0 Cons are trash, Vet 0 IS are trash, Vet 0 Grens are also trash. It's a concept that applies to every faction - veterancy matters. A reinforce cost reduction tech is reasonable but additional men is too insane. Even for 6-man Cons adding 1 extra man with no weapon slots is already a huge impact. And 5-man Grens were so OP a couple of patches ago.
I also don't know where this notion that PFs are weak early on comes from. It seems that PF DPS == Volks DPS and therefore, logically, PFs are bad because volks are bad? I don't get it. Volks/PFs win vs Rifles and Cons long range. Win vs Cons medium range as well. Lose long range to IS. That's a pretty good balance in terms of power, as the long range is the first fu***** range that you engage in. Volks don't teleport next to the enemy squad to then run away to fight long range. Rifles and Cons are pretty much forced to close into Volks, and that opens up so many avenues to take advantage.
It comes from their literal stats.
Vanilla PFs have poor stats for their price tag. They don't even trade well vs Cons which are 240. They're 270mp but way weaker than Grenadiers long range and get shredded by IS, while having pitiful close range DPS so running up to IS doesn't work. They're like 6% better than Volks long range but 25% worse close range. Allied infantry need to pick their engagements with Volks but against PFs it's typically just run up and win. Riflemen and Cons just run up to Pfusiliers and rip them to shreds close range with like 200% the close range DPS.
You have to use your Sturmpio very well and your opponent has to misplay all the early engagements for you to survive a pure PF-opening. One game of an obscenely good player not getting rekt doesn't disprove the thousands of good to decent players who recognise that Pfusiliers early game is really bad. I do think the G43 package makes Pfusiliers way too good, but the people who insist that having one of the highest prices for a mainline and the worst starting combat stats somehow means they "aren't weak early game".