I get the argument that OST has comfortable lesser Panzer IV (G) that is a safer bet.
It would probably be theoretically a better option to consider in the hands of OKW, but imo end up being neglected in favour of doctrinal Ostwind or Luchs simply due to its micro intensive requirements and underwhelming performances.
If an OKW player keeps a luchs alive for 5 minutes he gets a lategame killing machine that can suppress squads in green cover.
The Ostwind is a solid tank that can hold off t-70s and even Stuarts and AEC when properly supported
The Stug E is simply unrewarding, so even OKW, with its expensive premium Panzer IV (J) would have better Tier 3.5 vehicle options.
I think OKW would benefit more from the unit since the faction lacks a late game AI vehicle that can support in an ongoing fight. They have Obersoldaten for that, but sometimes you don't want additional infantry to reduce bleed. They go directly from Luchs to an expensive P4, so at least the StuG E would have a niche as an AI specialist above the Luchs if you don't want a P4 for the job. Doesn't necessarily make it a great unit, but the StuG E would at least fill a whole in the line up, whereas it competes with at least two stock units (plus alternative doctrinal units) in OST.
The extra range doesn't really play in its favour with the slow projectile and casamate set up. As a support gun, to my experience it's inferior to even autofire 120mm mortar and leIG options
I think it would probably work better as a direct fire turretless anti infantry tank with a su-76 barrage ability.
I agree to that, although I personally like the way units like the StuG E, Brumm and Scott function with their "manual" aiming. However I'd assume if it had direct fire it didn't need an additional barrage, but that would be up for testing.
Casamates may be less used in 1vs1, but they are definitely still present, especially Stug G, Jagdpanzer IV ( and SU 85 occasionally.
The reason they are less used imo is that heavy tanks are much less common as well, and since most (all but the stug E and Brummbar) casamates are tank destroyers this makes premium mediums like KV1, T-34/85 and Panzer IV, generalists capable of engaging all targets especially with atg support, a better investment.
I don't think it has to do with casamates in general.
These units are used less because in 1v1s they are prone to being flanked. Larger modes become more "laney", making flanking harder. In essence casemates keep their strength while their disadvantage to being flanked diminishes. In 1v1 it is basically the opposite. Obviously these are also map dependent, but the general point holds still true. |
Thread: Bunkers22 Jun 2021, 15:42 PM
So, I have been listing a laundry list of advantages and not just the brace. How the hell are only able to focus on the brace. What about the fact that I pointed out it has SAME DAMAGE, SAME PEN, 900HP vs 640 HP ,NOT BEING DOCTRINAL, BEING AVAILABLE EARLIER. How can you not notice this????? Do you have some kind of tunnel vision. I saying you are fine with all of this.
I'm pretty sure your pak 43 getting killed by infantry in mere moments while the enemy can push armor along side the infantry with impunity is much better not having to even bother protecting the damn thing vs infantry + armour pushes at all
Right so you think this is stupid but the actual solution which is too increase the armor pen of gamons to makes sure that it pens and fire arms do not and then Having to increase the Armor and Pen of all vehicles so that Gamons can't blow apart tanks but Tank v Tanks combat stays the same is NOT STUPID.
I retried to have a decent discussion, but if your only way to discuss Ostheer bunkers is by either lying about stuff I never wrote or even indirectly suggested (such as the increase of gammon bomb penetration and current brace being okay) or constantly straw-manning into completely different topics (PaK43, brace) then I'll cut it at that and rather save my time.
This is about bunkers (and by extension fighting positions) and the question if they should have enough armor to bounce grenades, as well as if a population cost should be applied. My point were and still are clear: Grenades should always deal at least some damage and they should have a small POP cost. |
|
What is the actual deflection damage of the PTRS?
I only know 40 damage if it penetrates. |
It'd be better off having a role more distinct to that of the Brummbar, honestly. OKW would likely love to have the STUG-E, but it's really surplus to requirement for OST in most cases.
I agree to that. The StuG E would probably be fantastic in the hands of OKW, OST already has a lot of AI options both stock and doctrinally and even at similar timing.
The argument of it being cheap doesn't really justify it imo, especially because turretless tanks are always cheaper than turretted counterparts, and for much less you can obtain actually good turretted light vehicles with comparable if not sometimes better dps against infantry and a nice mobility.
For the same price, you can also get a nice M8 scott gun carrier that can actually deal better with team weapons and moving infantry, while having a turret and mobility, and their armor difference is irrelevant until the Stug 3 E reaches vet 2 and gets a bonus, but even then 180 armor will rarely make the Stug E bounce anything but base PIATS and Bazooka.
Not only that, but the small AOE and the slow projectile make manual aiming really inconsistent without very high accuracy.
I absolutely find the Command Panzer IV a much better AI option on top of being turretted, mobile, able to deal with light vehicles and having the Command aura. And it even got a smoke shell that can support against team weapons, and that's 100 fuel, so 25 more
I agree to most of this as well, although I find it harder to compare the StuG E with the Scott. They function similarly, but in the end the Scott has to make up for the lack of rocket artillery. But that's another topic.
What the StuG lacks (or lacked? Let's see what the patch changes bring) overall is a place: Both in the OST line up as well as in different game modes. The 50 range are a decent difference to the Brumm: Support gun instead of breacher. But I think it fell short on the game modes: Casemates are barely used in 1v1, and for larger modes it is still somewhat fragile. It had a window of maybe 2v2 but that might not have been enough.
Let's see though what the commander changes will do. The smoke is another decent ability to differentiate it from the Brummbar. Not so sure about the pintle though, but time will tell.
We have to remember the StuG E is only 8 POP when discussing the approximate power level. That puts it roughly between Luchs and Ostwind in terms of performance. |
Thread: Bunkers21 Jun 2021, 18:00 PM
You want reason fine.
You can be ok with the fact that brits can tap a button and negate the effect of 200+ muni cost ability or nullify all incoming damage to the point repairing it is faster and yet the unit can still retain all the benefits of it's axis counter part while also not being de-crew able, having 40+ more hp.
Complete lie. You made that up to "support" your own argument. Quote me where I said "brace is fine".
Brace has nothing to do with the armor value of an OST bunker. Brits do not have a "counter part" to the bunker, so go state what you're comparing the Bunker to. Being decrewable is a huge benefit for any structure, I'd rather pay 3 infantry models to recrew instead of paying for the whole structure again.
Yet you are not ok with a mere bunker sometimes being able not be penned and killed(that's completely due to how coh2 works btw) by a 35 muni grenade.
How am I suppose interpret this anything other way than you having double standards for allies and axis.
Correct, I am not okay with the nonsense implementation that a grenade can deal exactly zero damage to a bunker while landing on top of it.
And to circle back since you seem to be quite obsessed with the brace ability: If the Bunker had had brace instead of armor, it would have died.
You can interpret this as not having double standards for both sides by not making up fake facts and assumptions. |
|
I think Paths are fine.
They're fairly weak out of the gate, and to be really effective they need a Rifle squad in front of them as a stopper as well as a damage dealer so they can get their 40% HP snipes.
I am not quite sure why OP does a comparison when JLI have a clear advantage in direct combat, yet the combat performance is not part of the comparison. Of course Paths are going to look very good.
What I can agree on though is to increase the CD. They're not meant to replace Rifles anyway, so there is no reason for them to have a very short CD. |
Thread: Bunkers21 Jun 2021, 16:16 PM
Right, you are a mod so you get to be a Hypocrite, while I can't say the truth.
To be honest I'd rather end it at this point since you have not shown much reasoning and either have thrown around unproven statements or even insults. I don't see any point in continuing that way. |
Thread: Bunkers21 Jun 2021, 16:07 PM
Yes, It's irrelevant. When allied structures that cost same and have laundry list of advantages over the axis ones for the same cost its fine non issue, but a axis structure a slight avantage and can't be cheesed by a 35 muni ability that's is somehow a problem. What a fucking hippocryte.
Nonsense. There is nothing "cheesy" about throwing a nade into a bunker, and if you seriously want to vent some alleged huge Allied bias on a tiny and very specific discussion about weird/unintuitive in-game behaviour, then go ahead.
But don't blame others if in the end you make your own argument look bad by throwing around accusations and insults. |
Thread: Bunkers21 Jun 2021, 12:56 PM
He is only complain about bunkers and why wasn't destroyed by a 1s fuse ability. He's not complaining about all structures axis and allies. So I can't support his one-sided farce.
Because apparently only bunkers have this issue (correct me there if I am wrong, but I think that is the case). Fighting positions get reliably damaged by nades as intended as you said yourself below.
I think bundle nades do some damage vs fighting positions and soviet bunkers. but Remember Brit emplacements can't be 1 clicked like the axis ones. So there is no way to judge if that is fair or not.
Bunkers and fighting positions have nothing to do with British emplacements and their ability to brace, nor with the 17pd or the PaK43. |
One always seems a bit underwhelming. Two working together seem a lot better, but that could be said for most units in COH2. I'm not sure why anyone would compare it to a Brummbar that costs twice as much fuel.
Because functionally they are the same unit type. They even work exactly the same.
I must say I can see OP's point about having to put a similar amount of micro into it compared to the Brummbar while getting much less out of it. On the other hand it is super cheap.
No real opiniom on it, but I have to say I have rarely seen it in game. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
