Profile of pantherswag

I think STUG is in a fine spot right now. It's assault gun role is pretty dope, and the low cost allows you to use combined arms with it without dedicating all of your resources towards tanks. Yeah alone it's not very good, but with a strong T1-T2 showing STUGs can be great. Target Weakpoint + PaKs allows you to kill even Soviet heavies into late game with just STUGs and PaKs.

Besides, they want to distinguish the roles of assault guns in this game. Jagdpanzer is already a armored dedicated anti-tank destroyer. Giving that role to the STUG as well would be a little redundant.

I've done it before as well with a lucky m20 mine or something similar, but the majority of the time it's because the other player was less skilled than me and played too aggressively with the puma or was just careless. If it's two players of equal skill the Okw player has a distinct advantage which is not balance.

It would definitely be cool if you could choose which vet bonuses you would want to award your units. Like Civ 5 where you could specialize units and shit. Then you could build a specialized army and give each unit character and shit depending on how you wanted each specific unit to perform.



But that would take wayyyy too much work.

Be sure to buy Ardennes Assault: We swear this time will be different! Again!

Also, for people who are saying Shocks can't beat Obersoldatens, you do realise it requires micro on your part, right? Allied players seem to want the Shocks to function the exact same as the Obersoldatens, but what they don't realise is that CoH2 is an asymmetrical rts game; this means that each unit has certain strengths and weaknesses, and has to be used a certain way in order to utilise it's maximum effectiveness.

I can't speak for others, but I believe people's issue is that there is not currently asymmetric balance, which is really the key issue. Shocks currently only have 1 area where they are better than obers, and that is in very close quarters. They also have slightly better survivability at vet 0, given their armor and 6 man squad, but this then tips over to Obers having better survivability at higher vet with self healing, reduced accuracy, and perma-sprint. Obers also have better vet, better nades, more abilities, and better long and mid range performance. They also have better short range performance if you get stg-44s doctrinally. All the while, Obers themselves are not doctrinal units like Shocks are, which means any OKW player can get obers, while any Soviet player who goes shocks is pidgeon-holed into a few doctrines.

That is not asymmetric balance.

On the vast majority of maps, this means that even with less micro or skill of use, Obers will inflict more damage and be all around more effective units than shocks. Not in every case, I'd rather have shocks than vanilla obers on Stalingrad 1v1 for instance, but 9 times out of 10 Obers will perform better than shocks.

Compare this to something like the T34 - Panzer 4 dynamic. About half the time I'd prefer a T34, and about half the time I'd prefer the Panzer 4. Same with Pak vs ZiS, Tiger vs IS2, 221/2 vs M20, Flame HT vs Flak HT, Cons vs Grens etc. That's asymmetrical balance, even though they perform differently, their effectiveness over a long period of time, through numerous games will be about the same.

On the contrary, Obers vs Shocks looked at on a variety of maps, game modes, faction match ups, and everything else, over a long period of time, Obers will be the more effective unit. That is not asymmetric balance.

Fool me once, shame on me.
Fool me twice, shame on WFA.
Fool me thrice, I ain't buying shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.